ARE THE CLINTONS "TOO BIG TO JAIL" ...

One Citizen Speaking...

---

ARE THE CLINTONS "TOO BIG TO JAIL" Posted: 01 Nov 2015 04:39 PM PST In an age when financial institutions are “too big to fail,” we should be asking ourselves if any politician or national figure, up to and including the President of the United States is “too big to jail” if they have committed egregious acts that violate the law. With the President, one might assert some form of immunity based on his plausible deniability that he knew what his subordinates were doing in his name and that unless there were Nixon-like tapes proving he was complicit in criminal activity, his punishment should be political. Impeachment by the House of Representatives; and following a trial in the Senate, removal from office. Possibly with Congressional action to deny him the customary perks and privileges of a post-office President. But what about cabinet-level officials such as Hillary Clinton?  Certainly notable personages who held cabinet-level positions were not exempt from the laws governing perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, and other offenses. People such as Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, Treasurer of the United States, James G. Watt, United States Secretary of the Interior, Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture and others such as General David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and many others.  Does the lack of transparency and accountability in the Obama Administration, along with the rank smell of corrupt politics, put Hillary Clinton beyond the realm of punishment? Does she represent an existential threat to others in the Administration, perhaps to Barack Obama himself, so she possesses that fabled “Get Out of Jail” card that makes it next to impossible to see justice prevail? The problem does not seem to lie with James Comey and the FBI, but with Loretta Lynch who heads the Justice Department where so many investigations and prosecutions have been stonewalled by her predecessor, the thoroughly politically corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder. As Benghazi inquiry fades, Clinton still faces legal questions about emails  Hillary Clinton appears to have overcome an investigation of her role in the 2012 deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but she still faces a months-long FBI inquiry into the handling of sensitive information while she was secretary of state. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, which opened its review this summer after classified information was found in emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server, is under pressure to act quickly, as Clinton is in the midst of running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Attorneys who have handled classified information cases say the bureau, initially asked to examine whether Clinton’s arrangement compromised national security secrets, ultimately will have to consider whether she and her aides failed to sufficiently safeguard sensitive information. They disagree about whether there’s enough evidence to prosecute her or her aides for sending and receiving government messages over the personal email system. routed through a private computer server in the basement of her New York home. But most who spoke to McClatchy say it’s unlikely the former first lady, senator and Cabinet secretary will face charges because of her high profile and the hurdle to prove she knew the emails contained classified information when she sent them to others. “She’s too big to jail,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling in 2011 in a leak case that led to an espionage prosecution and 3½-year prison term. He cited a pattern of light punishments for top government officials who have mishandled classified information while lower level whistleblowers such as Sterling have faced harsh prosecutions for revealing sensitive information to expose waste, fraud or abuse in government. Read more at: As Benghazi inquiry fades, Clinton still faces legal questions about emails Bottom line … From what has been reported in the mainstream media, one could make a prima facie case that Hillary Clinton, deliberately and with intent, set about creating and using an alternate path of communications to be used by herself and her closest aides that would circumvent governmental requirements relating to the creation, storage, and  preservation of “official” documents. That Hillary Clinton knowingly destroyed government documents. That she engaged in activities that appear to give rise to additional charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to Congress and other federal investigators. And, then there are the charges of using your office for personal gain in matters relating to the Clinton Foundation and its nefarious circle of operatives like Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and the infamous Sidney Bluementhal. Even if Hillary never faces justice in a court of law, she should be found guilty in the court of public opinion and be forever barred from seeking a political office in the United States of America. The fact that the progressive socialist democrats, now the neo-Communist Party of the USA, would offer a thoroughly corrupt liar like Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the United States after the damage wreaked on the nation by President Barack Obama, indicates that the party itself has become a clear and present danger to America, Americans, and to the Constitution of the United States. We are so screwed. -- steve