Review of the Hillary Clinton email Scandal
original article written by Net Advisor™
Early on, Hillary Clinton was very angry over this investigation. In 2015, Clinton reportedly told President Obama to “Call off your F***ing Dogs.”
On March 10, 2015, I watched an interview with Clinton. I felt she was not being truthful citing what I saw as non-verbal deception cues. I have several other notations on record citing Clinton’s apparent deceptions (examples: 03/11/2015, 08/15/2015, and 07/25/2016).
 FBI Clears Up Hillary Clinton’s Deceptive Statements.
Clinton previously claimed that everything she did was “permitted.” The Washington Post gave this “Three Pinocchios” and the FBI testified before Congress (second video below) that what she did was not permitted.
Clinton said that other Secretary of States did what she did in the past.
“The State Department IG found that “Secretary [Madeleine] Albright did not use a department or personal e-mail account during her tenure, and . . . Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not use a personal e-mail account to conduct official business.” So neither of those two Clinton forerunners had any classified documents come or go via e-mail.
Former Secretary Colin Powell used both government and personal e-mail accounts, although he had no private server…
…The Wall Street Journal calculates that the total number of classified e-mails on Clinton’s server totaled 2,115. So, among “other Secretaries,” the final score is: Albright 0; Powell 2; Rice 0; Clinton 2,115.”
“(I am not) familiar with the term “security inquiry” that Clinton and her aides have used. The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an “investigation.”
“It’s in our name. I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry’,’” the director said.”
ABC News reported that the word “liar” was most associated with Hillary Clinton, more than any other political candidate.
Clinton said she doesn’t think she has lied to the American public, then qualifies her answer with, she ‘hasn’t always been perfect.’
A video highlight reel was created to show the former Secretary of State’s public statements and compared those with the FBI Director’s findings.
The Washington Post immediately came out and gave Clinton’s statement “Four Pinocchios” (meaning what she said was not true). So Clinton lied about lying?
After basically being called a liar by the FBI, the Washington Post (and by many others) Clinton said she “short circuited,” and still would not admit to her ongoing public deceptions.
Based on the above video and other similar statements, it would appear that Hillary Clinton repeatedly provided false, and misleading statements while under the jurisdiction of a department or agency (FBI).
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry…”
“…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years…”
 Off the Record – Permanently?
As it turns out, during the FBI interview with Secretary Clinton, the FBI did not record Clinton’s testimony so it could be publicly reviewed including by Congress and archived.
The FBI also did not swear-in Mrs. Clinton. If someone is under possible criminal indictment, generally one would swear-in the subject under oath before taking legal testimony. If there is a possibility for a criminal arrest, the subject is also read their legal rights.
If the subject under oath lies, they could face the penalty of perjury (28 USC § 1746), in addition to whatever charges may be applied. If the subject is not given their Miranda rights before hand, those statements could be inadmissible in court. See Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966). It is extremely odd that the FBI did not record anything, make any notes, and did not advise Mrs. Clinton of her Miranda rights.
Further, to prevent agents from discussing the Clinton case AFTER it is “over,” the FBI apparently required investigators to sign this non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to prevent them from ever(?) talking about what took place in the case.
When a legal case is over, even a jury involved in the trial are free to talk about it, publish their notes, and some have even written books.
 Congress Holds Hearing with FBI Director.
Congress wanted to know what transpired during the FBI interview. The interview took place, not at the FBI, but rather at Mrs. Clinton’s location, and during the 4th of July weekend (2016), where most of country and news reporters were celebrating Independent Day.
A Congressional Oversight hearing followed where the FBI Director among others were called to testify before Congress. The following is an exchange by former federal prosecutor, former 7th Circuit Solicitor, now Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and James Comely, Director, FBI.
Now we know just a few highlights that Hillary Clinton was not truthful.
The FBI Director acknowledged that Hillary Clinton used home computer(s) to store classified/ top secret data or to the effect, and that this was an “Unauthorized” location to transmit otherwise classified information. Video:
One of the computers holding unsecured and highly sensitive National Security data was stored in a “bathroom closet.”
The FBI had its investigation, but so did the Inspector General. A separate U.S. Inspector General Report found Clinton’s emails had intelligence with the most sensitive classified information on them (video).
- IG: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs (Fox News).
- The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton’s emails (Politico).
 Judge Napolitano: Case Against Clinton is “Overwhelming.”
Former law professor, retired judge, now a media judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, discussed the legal basis against Hillary Clinton and said it is ‘Overwhelming, Damning and Grave.’
 Admission of Guilt & Obstruction.
Breitbart reported in 2015 that Hillary Clinton has a “long history of hiding documents.”
Clinton stated that she ‘turned over all (her) emails.’
“I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public…”
— Hillary Clinton. Source: Washington Post, 06/29/2016
Deleting 31,000 emails would make it difficult for the FBI, Congress or anyone else could ever see or review for FBI’s investigation, and try to protect national security issues. If one deletes one or more – in this case about 31,000 emails, then one did not turn over ‘all’ their emails.
To help facilitate in the coverup, the Clinton team apparently destroyed further evidence.
In this video, Clinton said she turned over 55,000 pages of email which the FBI said was not true (FBI Statement, P2 , Parr 5-6).
Clinton also printed the emails she choose to submit instead of providing the hard drive, or otherwise electronically storage of the emails. By printing the emails the full headers may be omitted. That makes it more difficult to trace the electronic signatures between email address connections.
It has been questioned whether Hillary’s lawyers even had a security clearance to read sensitive/ classified/ and Top Secret documents.
In 2014, the State Dept. was reportedly “stonewalling” – not providing emails as requested by the Associated Press (AP).
It took a Court Order in 2015 to require Clinton to turn over ALL emails, including the 31,000 deleted emails which Hillary Clinton never did. The Plaintiff’s argued that Hillary Clinton’s (former) State Dept. obstructed FOIA requests (Court Doc).
- Court: private-account email can be subject to FOIA (Politico).
How do I Avoid Prison?
In an email exchange Hillary Clinton asked to borrow a downloaded book that included a chapter on how to avoid going to jail by deleting emails – permanently.
“The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.
“The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”
— Source: ABC News (PDF)
This could be argued at a conscious attempt to cover up her tracks.
The U.S. State Dept where Hillary was supposed to be in charge of from 2009-2012 said that they were unable to locate email communications prior to Benghazi terror attack where four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador were killed.
— NetAdvisor™ (@NetAdvisor) July 31, 2016
 State Dept: We have No Clue.
The spokesperson for the State Dept. said they did not know what emails were turned over and what was not turned over.
 Sending and Receiving Classifieds emails.
Some of the emails in question involved Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential Campaign Advisor, Sidney Blumenthal. A report quoted Blumenthal that he had inside knowledge of the Clinton case. Blumenthal was questioned by investigators and disclosed that he was being paid about $200,000 a year from the Clinton Foundation for part-time work.
“I’d say it’s about $200,000 a year,” Blumenthal said when asked by a committee member how much the part-time work offering up advice and ideas was worth.
The New York Times reported (PDF) that while Blumenthal was doing this well paid ‘part-time’ work at the Clinton Foundation, he obtained intelligence data on Libya. The Hill reported that Blumenthal had 60 emails covering 120 pages on the topic referencing ‘Benghazi’ and ‘Libya.’
How does someone who is working ‘part-time’ for a ‘charity’ (Clinton Foundation) get confidential emails?
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information…
… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
— 18 USC § 798 – Disclosure of classified information (bold emphases added).
Hillary Clinton responded in a December 6, 2010 email exchange that it is was a ‘good idea’ for U.S. ‘diplomats to stop telling the truth.’
 Obama’s Record Prosecutions Under Espionage Act – Except One.
What is interesting to note is that the Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents – combined.
Codevilla stated under the 1917 Espionage Act (18 USC § 793-798), “…prohibits the release, communication, or transmission of “information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation…” (793 c).” The mishandling of government secrets should put someone in prison for “10 years” plus a fine for EACH count.
Another report by attorney Matthew Clark also argues that Hillary Clinton met the definition (violating) the Espionage Act under 18 USC § 793. Clark is Senior Counsel for Digital Advocacy with the ACLJ.
The non-profit, American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) provided further legal analysis and a laundry list of potential violations that could be, or rather should have been applied in the Hillary Clinton case.
But don’t let rules or laws get in the way of a political campaign?
 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice.
These actions would seem to be an active cover up, obstruction of justice, and destroying official government records.
When two or more people secretly conspiring to delete government records (emails), regardless where they are located, argues to conspiracy against the United States.
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
— 18 USC § 371 (bold emphases added).
 Conspiracy Theory.
I have not made it a practice to write about conspiracies but for those who want to entertain the conservation, consider this.
The Republican Establishment clearly is NOT in favor of the candidate who beat out 16 other Republicans for the party’s nomination for President. Some have defected supporting someone who the majority of America considers not honest and not trustworthy (Clinton).
Congress held hearings, and as far as we know, and despite evidence to the contrary, not a single person was even considered for prosecution. If Mrs. Clinton was successfully prosecuted, she could not ever hold office again.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States…”
— 18 USC § 2071 (b) (bold and red emphasis added).
Section (b) above does NOT require intent to prosecute. Clinton’s admission of her, her lawyers, the State Dept, and others deleting (destroying) government property (emails), arguably should apply to the above statute.
So here is the conspiracy theory part. What if the Republican Establishment (along with Obama, DNC, DOJ, liberal media, other Establishment), whom together dislike (or are afraid of) Donald Trump. They dislike Trump so much, that the reason why Hillary was not prosecuted is because it was the Establishment’s only way to try and maintain power?
Any normal person would have been prosecuted and have for far less. Then there is this other oddity. How did a British Secret Service (MI-6) agent get hold of ‘hacked‘ Clinton emails and who killed him?
Republican Richard Nixon, resigned from the Presidency as he was facing impeachment from office, in re: United States v. Nixon (1974). Compared to Hillary Clinton and (insert) Barack Obama, both have done more than Nixon in comparison (We’ll cover more on this in another report).
“The special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal subpoenaed tape recordings made of President Nixon (the “President”) discussing the scandal with some of his advisers. The President claimed executive privilege as his basis for refusing to turn over the tapes.”
Others also draw parallels to the Nixon-Watergate scandal to Hillary Clinton’s email Gate.
 Voters Turn.
In the final analysis, despite the evidence and clear statutes against Hillary Clinton and potential others, it appears that if you are wealthy and powerful the law does not apply to you?
Voters in the November 2016 election can make their views be heard at the ballot box. Either to support what appears to be a clear circumventing of justice as stated hereto; or to not permit such a person from holding high office.
Hillary Clinton said on August 5, 2016 to ‘hold her accountable.’ That decision is now in the hands of the voters.
- Wikileaks Published 30,322 Hillary Clinton emails (Additional 30,000 email were deleted and destroyed by Clinton and her lawyers – unless the emails were hacked*).
*Clinton emails hacked?
- 2015-09-30 Emails – Russia-linked hackers tried to access Clinton server – AP
- 2015-10-07 Clinton subject to hack attempts from China, Korea, Germany – AP
Original image, videos, sources by may be copyright by their respective owners. Original article content, Copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.