Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Will Hillary Get Indicted?

FBI-Hillary interview lost; the silence of the lambs
One more clue that the fix is in
By Jon Rappoport
July 11, 2016
It's unthinkable---but not surprising---that the FBI didn't record their interview with Hillary Clinton.
We're told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.
Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake. 
Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI's interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.
The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.
The New York Times: "Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that 'it's still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.' There was no transcript."
There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.
There was no recording.
FBI agents merely took notes.
These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don't know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we'll never know, because the FBI will never release them.
FBI Director Comey wasn't even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.
It's impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation. 
In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice---he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability. 
But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton's own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.
Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, "That was a misinterpretation of what I said." As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading---otherwise known as lying.
Everything I've written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers---before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.
Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.
There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.
That intent to destroy evidence---and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.
Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that's true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation---the Hillary interview---were left to blow away in the wind.
Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer---gone forever.
She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren't.
The FBI's purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.
In Comey's testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:
When Hillary said she didn't use her personal server to send or receive emails marked "classified," she lied.
When Hillary said she didn't send classified material, she lied.
When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.
When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn't return thousands of emails.
In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?
Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?
Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?
Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?
Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?
We'll never know---courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.
If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:
His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.
That's what he did.
It's worth remembering that Hillary's husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.
But not this time. Not with this Clinton.
This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.
Hillary hit the sweet spot.
Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.
Her dream, the country's nightmare.
A gift from the FBI.
Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.
We only get the silence of the lambs.
Former U.S. Atty.: I’d Indict Clinton; Comey’s Comments ‘Over the Line’
By News on the Net —— Bio and Archives
July 7, 2016
Former U.S. Atty.: I’d Indict Clinton; Comey’s Comments ‘Over the Line’
A former U.S. District Attorney tells MRCTV that he would indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified emails, despite FBI Dir. James Comey’s claim that “no reasonable prosecutor” would press charges against Clinton.
Dir. Comey made his claim in a press conference on Tuesday, in which he announced his recommendation that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch not indict Hillary Clinton over her private email server scandal – even though there’s “evidence” she broke the law:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
But, Matthew Whitaker, a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa from 2004-2009, tells MRCTV that there’s certainly enough evidence to indict Clinton, given the facts laid out by Comey. He says he’d indict Clinton because “that’s why we have the grand jury system.”
Whitaker, who previously worked with Comey, said the FBI director was “stepping over the line” with his “unprecedented” press event editorializing and "acting as judge and jury."
Watch Whitaker explain why, if he were in Lynch’s position, he’d still press charges against Clinton, despite the FBI director’s recommendation.

Prosecutor Explains How Clinton Got Off  
Published on Jul 6, 2016

Media shreds Hillary Clinton after FBI report on email conduct | SUPERcuts! #337  
Published on Jul 5, 2016
Yesterday FBI guaranteed Obama’s 3rd Term
Now galloping full-speed toward the White House, is Barack Obama’s third term
By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives 
July 6, 2016
The only way out of the hell where Alinsky Twins Barry Soetoro and Hillary Clinton have abandoned America starts with Americans breaking out of the state of denial in which they’ve been living.
There was never even a sliver of a chance that the law-breaking Hillary Clinton would be indicted for her flagrant email felonies.
Once Obama stepped up to openly stump for her, Hillary Clinton would never be brought to justice.  That should have been everyone’s first clue.
Clinton not only skated free but is is now campaigning for presidency courtesy of American tax dollars
The soap opera theories that FBI Director James Comey was in reality laying all of Clinton’s criminality out there so that he could come along and change his mind some time in future is so much wishful-thinking and bunk.
The FBI is not the same FBI lionized in the plots of so many television series but Barack Obama’s FBI, now part of the force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded—that Obama had nearly 8 long years to build.
Debilitating and depressing as it may be to face, it was not the felonies of Hillary Clinton that Comey yesterday laid bare, but the harrowing state in which the American citizenry has been left.
Obama and Clinton want everyday Americans to know that they are owned and controlled outright by the circumstances that were studiously planned for them over the last eight years; that they can make a run for it but there’s no place to hide.
Bold as brass and unabashed, absolute proof of their intentions for America’s future comes in Obama and Clinton campaigning on Air Force One on the very same day Comey made his announcement.  In other words,  Clinton not only skated free but is is now campaigning for presidency courtesy of American tax dollars.
NeverTrump cabal are still focusing their energy on trying to stop Trump and not Clinton
The hopelessly gullible had been guzzling the Kool-Aid that Clinton would be behind bars for months on end, but not everybody was taken by surprise.
The more gullible among us had been led down the garden path by some talk show radio hosts, even those suggesting that Clinton could be indicted post election.
Incredible and even surrealistic that it was Bernie Sanders’ surrogates and not conservatives who charged that “the system is rigged” in the aftermath of yesterday’s FBI announcement.
And incredible how even now after Clinton skated away the NeverTrump cabal are still focusing their energy on trying to stop Trump and not Clinton.
How can these supposedly ‘conservative’ hypocrites and pseudo intellects   save the Constitution when they outright ignore criminality?
Add to the sabotage of the NeverTrump cabal the staggering propaganda of the 20,000 TV ad spots the Clinton campaign has aired since June 8, the day after she became the Democrat Party’s presumptive nominee.
No, Director Comey did not lay bare Clinton’s gargantuan lies in the hopes of bringing Clinton to justice at some future date.
As CFP commenter Joe Hatfield points out, “It’s very likely that Bill and Hillary have massive amounts of career-ruining dirt on many, many high-level, prominent people and would not hesitate to bring everyone down with her if an indictment came through. This is probably what Bill told Loretta in their “secret” meeting on the tarmac. And in exchange, Loretta will be rewarded in some way. Methinks there was a collective sigh of relief going through the govt and congressional chambers yesterday. HOWEVER….. that being said, whether he realizes it or not, Comey just massively expanded that black cloud of unlikeability, doubt and corruption over her head. She may have beat this rap, but she is not going to win in the court of public opinion.”
Meanwhile, there were not one but two riders on the wild-eyed mare that bolted out of the FBI barn yesterday, and the one that will never wear an orange jumpsuit , now galloping full-speed toward the White House,  is Barack Obama’s third term.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
FBI’s Comey: No charges appropriate in Clinton email case
Olivier Knox
Chief Washington Correspondent
July 5, 2016
FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters on Tuesday; Hillary Clinton addresses the the U.S. Conference of Mayors last week. (Photos: Michael Conroy/AP, Cliff Owen/AP)
In a bombshell announcement, FBI Director James Comey accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday of having been “extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private email server but recommended that she not face criminal charges.
“Although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,” Comey said in a televised statement from FBI headquarters. “Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
The announcement, which came hours before Clinton was to hold her first joint campaign rally with President Obama, did not quiet the political firestorm surrounding her decision to use a private server for her official work email during her time at the State Department.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump immediately denounced the news on Twitter.
“The system is rigged,” he said. “Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.

Donald J. Trump
FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
11:39 AM - 5 Jul 2016
The announcement came after the FBI interviewed Clinton at its headquarters on Saturday for three and a half hours, the culmination of a yearlong investigation that has dogged her presidential campaign and fueled her sky-high disapproval ratings.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday that she would accept the recommendations of the FBI and senior Justice Department prosecutors. Lynch made that pledge as she tried to dampen the controversy over a meeting with former President Bill Clinton earlier in the week.
While Comey stopped short of recommending that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee face criminal charges, the widely respected FBI chief painted an unsparing picture of her controversial and unprecedented use of a private email server to do government work. While other past secretaries of state had used pr “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” he said.
Clinton sent and received emails that concerned matters that were classified at the top-secret special access program level at the time of the communications, he said. That flatly contradicted the former first lady’s public assertion that she never sent or received classified information.
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.
Comey also said “it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to Clinton’s private email account, noting that her use of that system was widely known and that she sent and received work emails “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”
The FBI chief explained the decision not to recommend charges by saying that previous cases that were prosecuted involved a blend of clearly intentional mishandling of national secrets, or disloyalty to the U.S., or obstruction of justice. “But we do not see those things here,” he said.
Still, Comey said, individuals found to have done what Clinton and her senior aides did rarely face “no consequences.”
Instead, “those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions,” he said.
But with Clinton and her top aides out of government, that seemed unlikely to occur.
The Clinton campaign said it was pleased with the outcome.
“As the Secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again,” the campaign said in a prepared statement. “We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”
(This story has been updated since it originally published.)

Jeanine Pirro reacts to Bill Clinton's meeting with AG Lynch  
Published on Jul 1, 2016
Report: Hillary Clinton Considering Keeping Loretta Lynch as Attorney General
by Alex Griswold
July 5th, 2016
According to The New York Times this weekend, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton plans to keep Attorney General Loretta Lynch around in her administration if she wins in November.
Per the Times, Clinton plans to build a cabinet that will be exactly half women. Accordingly, “Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015.”
As Attorney General, Lynch is currently in charge of overseeing an FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server. Critics recently raised questions about Lynch’s role in that investigation after she privately met with former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac. Lynch insists that meeting was mostly personal, with conversation centering around her and Clinton’s grandchildren.
Judge Pirro Goes Nuts on Why Clinton Won’t Be Indicted: ‘It’s a Charade!’
by J.D. Durkin
July 2nd, 2016
While the news was still hot on Friday morning that Attorney General Loretta Lynch would be receiving the recommendation from the FBI about possible prosecution of Hillary Clinton, Judge Jeanine Pirro joined the set of Fox & Friend to slam the “charade.”
Pirro — alongside with many others — argued that Lynch’s move is hardly a binding operation, but rather a subtle play on words meant to lead people into thinking that she would be essentially stepping aside and allowing the FBI to dictate the course of action.
“That means she is accepting their determination; that means not deferring the decision to them. She is not recusing herself — which is something she should have done under rule 14 of the Justice Department ethics code,” Pirro clarified Friday morning. Fox & Friends cohost Tucker Carlson had previously in the broadcast called the maneuver, “a good thing,” for people looking for objectivity under FBI Director James Comey.
But Pirro wasn’t so sure. “[Lynch] works for someone who has already endorsed Hillary Clinton,” she continued, referring to the complicit culpability of President Barack Obama. She furthered that star witness number one would be the President himself, since he was on the receiving end of many of the emails that Clinton would have sent under her separate email server.
“So we’ve been reading this then in the reverse. This is the first sign then that we’re not going to see an indictment for Hillary Clinton,” Fox & Friends cohost Clayton Morris sheepishly admitted.
And if reports Saturday afternoon are to be believed, they just might be correct.

Media blasts Hillary Clinton on being dishonest and untrustworthy | SUPERcuts! #336  
Published on Jul 3, 2016
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
by Lachlan Markey
Friday, November 6, 2015
Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
Translated: she knew precisely what she was doing when she signed that document, and she knew precisely what was expected of her and what could potentially occur to her if she were to abrogate that agreement.
It was all made plain and clear, up front.  A copy of that Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) is here.
A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
Part of the document she SIGNED states “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize Clinton acquired her own email server because she wanted total control of the information, and to ensure that its contents were not readily discoverable — when in fact likely the precise opposite occurred.  Just ask the Chinese and the Russians.
It’s already been revealed there were classified emails on her server.  They were marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information.”  A valuable list of US security clearance delineators is here.
The incredibly smarmy Clinton arrogance and imperious conceit enters the picture when, despite all of this and, having signed her NDA and knowing so, she still believed she was of such import that she would not be touched or held accountable for any action.  The private server was an obvious attempt at avoiding her responsibilities and duties.  She, as with Obama, have administrations that are the opposite of transparent.
They were and are they most opaque by design.
Hillary Clinton jeopardized US security, lied about it, and couldn’t care less about it.
'Hillary for prosecution, not president'
WND Exclusive
WASHINGTON – With the possibility fading of Barack Obama’s Justice Department prosecuting the inevitable Democratic Party presidential nominee, a new independent campaign to expose what it sees as Hillary Clinton’s criminal actions and prosecute her at the state level is on fire, says one of the organizers.
The campaign is called the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, and it was conceived by two veteran investigative journalists who plan to take their findings to state attorneys general in jurisdictions in which the non-profit, tax-exempt Clinton Family Foundation does business.
“The Clinton Family Foundation is effectively a criminal, money-laundering operation principally established to enrich the founders with political payoff money, including millions from foreign donors,” said Joseph Farah, founder and chief executive officer of WND. “It’s a racketeering enterprise protected by the Democratic Party dons – including the president of the United States and his attorney general.”
Since the campaign was launched a week ago, hundreds of Americans have donated to the cause, says Farah.
“It’s on fire,” he says. “I haven’t seen such enthusiasm since the campaign to dump John Boehner earlier this year. That campaign proved successful. I think this one will too.”
Farah and WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author, have teamed up with the express purpose of bringing the Clintons to justice. Farah and Corsi have been investigating and reporting on the Clintons for 23 years.
The project will be funded by contributions from ordinary Americans to accomplish three goals:
•expand the investigative reporting efforts into Hillary Clinton’s illegal activities;
•empower prosecutors at the state level to bring charges against her;
•prevent her from becoming the next president of the United States.
Farah was responsible for uncovering some of the facts that led directly to Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. For his efforts, his news organization was targeted with politically motivated tax audits by the Internal Revenue Service at the direction of the Clinton White House. One of his Cabinet officers threatened donors to the organization with loss of government contracts if he continued to make contributions to Farah’s news agency. Farah’s offices were broken into. His Post Office box was burglarized. He was threatened.
Corsi was credited with a big role in the defeat of John Kerry in his bid for the presidency in 2004. Corsi co-authored “Unfit for Command,” one of his two No. 1 New York Times bestsellers that, with the Swiftboat Campaign, made a difference in a very close race. In 2008, Corsi wrote “The Obama Nation,” the first major effort to expose the Obama agenda now all-too-familiar to the American people. His “Where’s the Birth Certificate?,” a bestseller in its own right, prompted Obama to release his disputed long-form birth certificate after stonewalling for four years.
Corsi and Farah are working closely with other investigative reporters, judicial watchdogs, state officials and attorneys who recognize it’s not enough just to document Clinton crimes, but to prosecute them before Hillary can accept the nomination for the presidency.
Farah and Corsi believe this effort may be the only one that can stop Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency next year.
“The project is an effort by WND and its dedicated investigative reporting team, private investigators, judicial watchdogs, state officials and attorneys who recognize it’s not enough just to document Clinton crimes, but to bring them to the attention of prosecutors who will bring them to justice before she can even accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States,” says Corsi. “We need help to hire the private investigators needed to prove that Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with a cadre of close associates, have used the Clinton Foundation to be a personal piggybank, in complete disregard of state and federal laws that strictly prohibit what is known as ‘inurement,’ the crime of using a tax-exempt foundation to defraud charitable donors so their contributions can be diverted to personal use.”
All it will take to close down the Clinton Foundation is one or more state attorneys general who develop the investigative proof the Clintons have violated with impunity laws regarding the filing of the audited financial statements and regulatory reports needed to prove a charitable foundation is being run honestly, Corsi adds.
A state attorney general, armed with proof and a well-crafted criminal complaint, can get from a state judge a temporary restraining order that would shut down the Clinton Foundation, replacing the board and officers with qualified individuals appointed by the court.
In addition to hiring private investigators, attorneys are needed to draft and file criminal complaints with attorneys general in states throughout the nation.
“In addition, I have teamed up with Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel, to expand the series of articles we have been writing in WND.com on the Clinton Foundation scandals,” he said. “A politically explosive book – every bit as big as ‘Unfit for Command’ and ‘The Obama Nation’ – is also being planned.”
Ortel characterizes the Clinton Foundation not as a charity, but as a “vast, criminal conspiracy.”
Through the use of a private email server that hid her personally serving communications from the public, Hillary Clinton along with a network of co-conspirators that included Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as Bill Clinton operatives Doug Band, Ira Magaziner and Sid Blumenthal, have monetized the Department of State’s trust for Clinton profit and gain, says Corsi.
“But the time to turn the tables on the Clintons is coming very soon,” he says. “With adequate funds, we can hire attorneys around the country to bring criminal complaints against the Clinton Foundation in a growing number of states where attorneys general can work together to share information and file what ends up being a multi-state collective action.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton: An Exceptionally Dishonest Life
By Frosty Wooldridge
April 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton lives a very dishonest life. From the time she enjoyed “first lady” status as the wife of Governor Bill Clinton in Arkansas, to her time as the president’s wife in the White House---all the way to Secretary of State of our nation---Hillary Rodham Clinton told-tells so many lies---she thinks lying equates to normality.
Beyond her slinging “F-words” toward her servants in Arkansas to raging “F-bombs” at Secret Service agents in the White House as documented in a half dozen books, she tolerated-condoned her husband who broke every moral code of marriage and ethics during his tenure of power.
She continued(s) her deceptive-dishonest life in order to gain and maintain power at the highest levels of government.
Lord Acton, 1834-1901, said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (The same can be said for such women as Hillary Clinton.)
No woman with any moral or ethical fiber within her being would tolerate her husband lying repeatedly over the years, cheating on her over the decades and having sex with 21 year old intern Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office of the White House.
At one point as a young lawyer in the Watergate proceedings, she faced discipline for lying and malfeasance, which Jerry Zeifman, a democrat—fired her.
This quote comes from FoxNation February 25, 2014:
“As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
“The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
“Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.”
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” (Several fact checks contest the proceedings, but cannot definitely vanquish this event.)
Have you noticed that Chelsea Clinton does not look like Bill or Hillary Clinton?
This quote came from Robert Morrow: “Hillary also had affairs with Webb Hubbell (Experts think Chelsea is the offspring of Webb Hubbell) and Vince Foster was her emotional husband.”
In the book Passion & Betrayal by Jennifer Flowers, the blond model described her 12-year affair with Bill Clinton descriptively and compellingly. Historians may read the book for a clearer understanding of the ‘real’ Bill Clinton. He shared the same dishonest and deceitful life as his wife Hillary.
During her time as Secretary of State, she utilized Muslim Brotherhood female aide Huma Abedin to counsel Hillary and push Abedin’s Islamic influence into the White House. Today, no less than 13 Muslims aide and direct Barack Hussein Obama including the head of the CIA, John O. Brennan, who converted to Islam.
While Secretary of State, she illegally used outside and insecure email servers to carry on our nation’s highest top secrets of classified information. That’s a direct violation of our laws and punishable by prison.
Additionally, in 2012, she ignored calls from Ambassador Stevens as to the dangers facing him and his staff in Libya. She failed to send in Special Forces in the area to protect Stevens’ life and that of embassy staff. Four perished
She later explained and gave excuses, “What difference did it make?”
Four good men lost their lives as well as the anguish of their families. Hillary Clinton, like all bureaucrats enjoys 24/7 protection from harm. Additionally, she created a story that a video against Islam caused the attack, which proved totally false.
After leaving the White House, she complained about being broke, when in fact, a retiring president commands in excess of $200,000.00 a year for the rest of his life.
Right now, investigators could indict her for her lies as to the emails, Benghazi
and many of her activities with overseas money known as the “Panama Papers.” Because she enjoys insider power, many others cover up for her and she covers for them. We may never know the truth about Benghazi, just as we may never know the truth about how, where and the ‘who’ of Barack Obama’s origins.
Today, Hillary steps in front of adoring crowds with her anticipating to become the first female U.S. president. Most don’t know about her past, don’t care about her lies or her vindictive personal behavior. They expect to vote along party lines with their emotions.
She told reporters that America needs to inject more than 75,000 Syrian refugees, as if none of them will instigate the next Brussels, Belgium or Paris, France terrorist attacks in America. She neglects to mention that African-Americans struggle horribly in today’s economy. She neglects the 1.5 million homeless Americans as well as 14 million unemployed, but expects to place all those refugees on welfare. She forgets that America suffocates under a $19 trillion debt. She fails to comprehend that America imports 1.2 million legal immigrants annually with 91 percent of them subsisting on welfare paid for by struggling Americans. She promises amnesty for 20 to 30 million illegal aliens violating our nation’s borders. She refuses to secure America’s borders.
If a life of deception and dishonesty propels Hillary Rodham Clinton into the White House again, the utter moral, ethical and reasoned foundation of the U.S. Constitution and the American people will flush into the toilet of history. While she dresses nicely, speaks eloquently and dances her dance---she cannot out talk, out run or out last her exceptionally dishonest life.
© 2016 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.
Hillary Clinton’s Tightrope Walk
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and "Global Censorship of Health Information" and "Restore The Republic"
January 18, 2016
Hillary Clinton is teetering on a legal tight rope. She is counting on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to block the anticipated request for a Grand Jury to indict her for violation of federal laws governing the handling of classified information. Lynch, however, will become a pariah with lead investigators at the FBI and many career prosecutors at Justice if she intervenes to prevent prosecution of Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming quantity of emails containing classified information that Clinton caused to be transmitted to and from her personal email account and possible additional federal corruption charges are too great to excuse, ignore, or sweep under the rug. The evidence is indeed overwhelming and, unlike in the case of General David Patraeus (whose dereliction constituted one instance of mishandling of classified information), Hillary Clinton’s dereliction involves over 1,340 separate communications. Increasingly, it looks like the central issue about to arise is not whether Hillary will be recommended for indictment by the FBI, but whether Lynch will sacrifice her own career to prevent the matter from reaching a grand jury, and whether the Democratic Party will stand by Hillary Clinton and back her presidential bid even if she is the subject of an FBI recommendation to indict or an actual indictment.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne reported this past week that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton embraces not only the mishandling of classified information but also public corruption charges based on influence peddling. Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash first drew significant attention to the overlap between foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s actions while serving as Secretary of State. At root, FBI seeks to determine if decisions made by Hillary Clinton in her dealings with foreign businesses and leaders were in any way in response, or pay back, for contributions lavished upon the Clinton Foundation by those same businesses and leaders or at the direction of those businesses and leaders.
It may well be that if Lynch lets a bill for indictment proceed before a federal Grand Jury, Hillary Clinton will not only be forced to answer for the mishandling of state secrets but also for unlawful influence peddling to bolster the coffers of the Clinton family foundation. The law violations are linked to a significant prison term for the former Secretary of State.
The pressure on Lynch to let the charges proceed will be intense from the FBI, and even from within Justice. Given the waning months of the Obama presidency, and the likelihood that a refusal to allow the charges to proceed would permanently damage Lynch’s reputation in the legal community, there are fair odds that Lynch will let the matter proceed (and that Obama will not act to stop the prosecution). Indeed, by relying on the highly secretive and expert litigation team within the National Security Division of the Department of Justice rather than the general criminal division, Lynch may already have sealed Clinton’s fate. As soon as the FBI completes its investigation and refers the matter to justice with a recommendation to prosecute, the pressure will be acute on Lynch to do the right thing and honor the rule of law over politics. Given the animosity between the Obamas and the Clintons, it is also possible that Obama will not take any extraordinary step to interfere by either pressuring Lynch to block prosecution or taking any other step that might make prosecution more difficult.
Hillary Clinton is thus teetering on a legal tight rope. If indicted before the Democratic National Convention, she may well loose the nomination to Sanders. Undoubtedly it will increase the likelihood that Sanders will be the nominee if her indictment, or even a recommendation for indictment, comes down before the convention. What if she is indicted after she becomes the Democratic nominee? The Democratic Party would likely face considerable pressure to seek a second convention to fend off a serious independent party challenge, perhaps with Bernie Sanders running in that capacity.
Overall, any indictment of Clinton will create a new dynamic that will add impetus for greater independent support for the Republican nominee. Indeed, if the Republican is otherwise neck and neck with the Democratic nominee, a Clinton indictment could well flip the election for a Republican, particularly if the groundswell of disaffected voters now brought back into the electorate by Donald Trump remains involved to the point of voting in the general election.
But what if either through pressure from Obama or on her own initiative, Lynch blocks the prosecution of Clinton? An action of that kind might well result in a series of resignations from high level investigators and lawyers within the FBI and Justice and publicity sufficient to trigger public ire as well. Public condemnations of the failure to make Hillary account for law violations, far fewer of which have resulted in prison time or plea deals with hefty fines for dozens of others, including General Patraeus, may also be enough to give victory to the Republican nominee. It will certainly be a choice point of publicity in favor of the Republican nominee over Hillary throughout the remainder of the general election season.
The mainstream media, so willing to maintain apologias for Hillary Clinton, have yet to appreciate the adverse political avalanche that is about to befall the putative Democratic standard bearer. Burdened by shallow political support and the highest negative ratings of any candidate running (predicated on public perception that Hillary is a “liar”), Hillary Clinton is indeed teetering. An indictment or word of FBI recommendation of an indictment may be enough to cause her fall, denying her the Democratic nomination; or, if she is nominated before being indicted or recommended for indictment, that may be enough to ensure her loss in the general election.
© 2016 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
Website: Emord.com