The Real Reason Hillary Isn’t in Jail. 35 Shares. 29. 4. 2. Hillary Clinton isn’t in jail. She isn’t under investigation or review. In fact, no charges were ever brought against her. These statements probably represent the most holistic failure of justice in the history of America.
Sep 08, 2016 · L ike a trio of famished buzzards, three ugly words have started to circle over Hillary Clinton: obstruction of justice. After reviewing the FBI’s recently released E …
Mar 18, 2015 · Hillary Clinton, and her attorneys who have helped delete her e-mails, have committed the serious federal crime of obstruction of justice. In an op-ed today at the Wall Street Journal (behind the ...
While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and …
After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled.
And they quickly indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senator Menendez on extremely stretched or tortured views of vague criminal statutes and factual allegations of conduct that may well not be criminal. Senator Menendez can’t vacation with his best friend but Hillary Clinton and her “Foundation” can accept millions of dollars from foreign governments seeking to curry her favor.
See also Title 18 United States Code Section 2071 (prohibiting destruction of records ). The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community has advised Congress that even in the few emails he has reviewed, there was top secret information—in the form of digital satellite imagery and signals intelligence.
Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute—some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime. And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.
Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.” But that’s not all.
General Petraeus certainly had no criminal intent, and neither did any of the reporters. Ms. Clinton, however, established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act—as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception.
During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.
First, there are generally two statutes that come into play in prosecutions related to lying to Congress: 18 U.S.C. §1621 — perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 — false representations before Congress. Under section 1621, the government must prove that a witness took an oath, before a competent tribunal, and “willfully and contrary to such oath states ...
But here’s the reality: Prosecutors rarely go after individuals for lying to Congress. A Quinnipiac law review article mentioned earlier found only six people have been successfully convicted of lying to Congress between the 1940s and the mid-2000s.
Director Comey’s statement on the morning he announced that he would not bring charges, as well as his congressional testimony made it clear that this statement was not true. In his statement Comey said, “I have so far used the singular term, ‘e-mail server,’ in describing the referral that began our investigation.
FBI Director James Comey during his testimony last week indicated that several statements Hillary Clinton made in her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi were contradicted by findings in the FBI’s investigation. However, he stated the FBI did not consider her congressional testimony as part of its investigation ...
Unlike the statements about the classified material, Director Comey’s testimony does not help Clinton on this issue. That potentially gives prosecutors an opening to go after Clinton on this matter, if they choose to do so. But here’s the reality: Prosecutors rarely go after individuals for lying to Congress.
The final matter is far more troubling for Clinton. Again, during questioning from Congressman Jordan , Clinton was asked about the process used to determine which emails were work-related. Here is a relevant portion of that exchange:
Additionally, prior history shows that the Department of Justice very rarely prosecutes individuals for lying to Congress.
Here's Why the FBI Won't Indict Hillary Clinton on Emails. On Tuesday morning, FBI Director Ja mes Comey announced that the government will not file any formal charges against Hillary Clinton for using a personal email address during her tenure as Secretary of State. Comey called the mistake, which led to massive security breaches, ...
The most important thing to understand is precedent. When issuing a recommendation for Clinton, Comey said the FBI considered past cases where criminal charges had been filed for a similar crime.
The National Review, meanwhile, suggested that Comey would resign in protest if not given the chance to pursue charges against Hillary.
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
FOIA is designed to “improve public access to agency records and information.”. The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”.
Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) claimed no inside knowledge but told the Washington Examiner that he believed Comey “would like to indict” Clinton and Abedin but was having to “triple-time” a case that would normally be a “slam dunk.”.
While serving as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton conducted State Department business through a private email server routed through her home and using custom domain names. While this much is not disputed by the Clinton campaign, the potential that classified information may have comprised the contents of some emails has generated significant controversy, and Clinton could potentially face FBI indictment over it. While current and former Republican lawmakers have cited unnamed Bureau sources promising imminent indictment, Clinton’s allies in Congress, including even Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders, have mostly backed her on the issue. A final decision on the matter, according to FBI sources talking to The Hill, could come at any time.
Clinton did not use a government email address during her State Department tenure, electing instead to conduct all official business on a personal email account run through a private server in her home.
However, analysis by attorney and national security expert Bradley Moss revealed that most of the classified information in her emails was received, not sent, making a case against Clinton much harder to build. On top of that, at least some of the emails she sent and received were retroactively classified during the investigation, making it difficult to determine what “born classified” information she knowingly transmitted versus the information she could not have known would be classified.
It was unconscionable that the AG would meet with the spouse of someone under federal investigation in such a manner . Though touted as an unexpected meeting, that is inconceivable. The two security details, Lynch’s and Clinton’s, would have learned during their security advance of the other being on the tarmac about the same time. This would result in prior notification to the protectee. Finally, assurances by the AG that their discussion was unrelated to the investigation is irrelevant.
Arrogance has a way of colliding head-on into a heavy dose of humility. However, the agents assigned to the Clinton investigation and the myriad others, by and large, are men and women who sacrifice daily to preserve the safety of the American people and uphold the Constitution.
The lawful exercise by prosecutors to choose not to prosecute despite sufficient evidence is known as their “prosecutorial discretion.”. And, prosecutors prefer the dog tied to the tree.
The AG could shuffle resources to other agencies, raise thresholds, change priorities, slow or deny approvals (particularly relevant in public corruption cases) — all kinds of bureaucratic maneuvering unlikely to make headlines but guaranteed to make an FBI Director miserable.
Don’t blame the FBI — Hillary Clinton was never going to be charged. . It is this juxtaposed sentiment of admiration and vitriol that led to the three reasons the FBI’s investigation into the former secretary of State’s alleged use of a personal server was never going to result in charges.
Thus, FBI investigations do not result in federal charges without the approval of the DOJ and, by extension, the AG. That is why the June 2016 meeting between former President Clinton and former AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix was so significant.
Privately, however, Comey would have known the AG did not support charges, and defying the DOJ was not an option. Unlike Comey’s decision to buck the White House when he was deputy AG, there was no constitutional issue at stake to compel disobedience, and there was plenty of reason to comply.
Drake’s indictment alleged that he “knowingly and willfully [made] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, that is, falsely stating to special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he never gave Reporter A classified information.”
Drake was also charged with obstruction of justice since he “knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed and covered up records…. with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation….” In an attempt to conceal his relationship with the aforementioned reporter, Drake allegedly “deleted classified and unclassified information on his home computer.”
Drake, like Clinton, utilized a home computer system to exchange emails containing classified information on a non-government email account. With this server, Drake transmitted information he was not authorized to possess in violation of 18 USC § 793 (e).