April 09, 2017

Amazingly, Many People Still Don't Understand Why Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Prosecuted


"When a sentence against a crime isn’t carried out quickly, people are encouraged to commit crimes." Ecclesiastes 8:11 (GW)

After coming out of her respite in the woods, instead of being grateful for not being prosecuted, Hillary Clinton is going on the attack. And it is amazing how many people still do not understand the law related to the email scandal and why she should have been prosecuted, and that a standard grand jury should have decided the outcome, not an FBI director.

On April 8, 2017, Wilkileaks dropped a bombshell showing that Seth Rich was the one that leaked information about the DNC corruption that led to Clinton's presidential primary victory, and he was murdered inexplicably while on his way to the FBI to report some information. But first, the following are some points raised by someone on facebook that underscore just how ignorant many people are of the facts of email-gate. And here is the applicable law.

Following is the U.S. national security related law that Hillary Clinton clearly violated: 

"(18 U.S.C Section 793-F)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—"

The key phrase is "gross negligence." If intent is considered important, as Comey claimed as an excuse for letting her off the hook, then the word "negligence" is meaningless. How many ways does it need to be said that negligence does not require any aspect of intent or motive whatsoever? Why is Hillary's intent an issue, when it does not matter according to this law? "Comey’s evoking the “intent” defense actually shows a calculated, premeditated effort to protect Clinton."
 
Obviously, removing sensitive information from its "proper place of custody" and delivering it to home-brewed servers, unsecured cell phones and I-Pads, is grossly negligent, regardless of the motive or intent. And many U.S. officials have been prosecuted for negligence with sensitive information. But the Clintons appear to be a special protected class wherein criminal behavior is overlooked. According to Ecclesiastes 8:11, this type of elitist justice system will only encourage more crimes, and it has obviously emboldened Hillary Clinton to flaunt her inexplicable freedom from incarceration. 
 
These are the types of bogus excuses people still try to make to argue that Hillary Clinton is innocent in the email scandal: 

1) Hillary's home was not unsecured. The place where the private server was located was under 24 hour Secret Service Protection."

The main threat was not some hacker physically climbing in through a balcony window, but hackers breaking into her home-brew servers, private cell phones and I-pads over the Internet: “Knocking over a home-brew email server doesn’t seem so far-fetched, given the break-ins we’ve seen at RSA, Sony, and the US government itself.”
  
HRC lost one of her personal laptops, with archives of all her sensitive info, in the mail: "Neither Hanley nor [the Platte River employee] could identify the current whereabouts of the Archive Laptop or the thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession,” the FBI report stated.
  
"On top of a missing laptop containing Clinton's personal email archive, we also know she used 13 devices for email, not one as she claimed for "convenience." Out of the 13 devices used, five of them were iPads. Two of those iPads are still missing a long with a number of Blackberries used by Clinton. Blackberries that weren't lost were destroyed by a staffer with a hammer."

Another point is that government servers automatically backup and archive emails for years, and avoiding the required protocol implies that there is another reason why Clinton did this, to avoid accountability. Considering what transpired with the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play pattern, this was altogether inexcusable.
  
2) “There were only 211 classified e mails...”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.”

A grand jury should have decided this case, and would have most likely had the reading comprehension to read the plain laws HRC was supposed to follow, and would have probably convicted her. 

3) "Previous Sec of States had used their own e mail domain to receive classified information. Although they did not use their own private server."

Plainly, HRC pushed the envelope beyond bending the rules a little. She used no government server and only her home-brew server, private cell phones, and I-Pads for sensitive information, when she had a serious obligation not to. This is worse than using a private email account occasionally on a secured server in a government office. But two wrong's don't make a right anyway. It's not a valid excuse. And many people have been prosecuted for not adequately protecting sensitive information with far viewer unsecured devices. And none of the others were making millions of dollars off of their inside knowledge and inside political influence, as was likely the case of the Clinton Foundation, which not-unsurprisingly stopped receiving donations after they lost their political clout and power.

4) "There's no evidence that classified information was leaked."
  

This defense avoids the content of the law. If it is valid for a driver caught speeding down a freeway to tell a police officer, "I'm sorry that I was going 20 miles over the speed limit, but I did not crash or kill anyone, so I am innocent." - then this is a valid defense. Obviously, it is irrelevant whether damage was proven, because that aspect was not in the law. This argument is just another biased and unsupported pleading on behalf of an elite politician. And besides this, since the presidential election, Andrew Napolitano showed that important sensitive data was in fact leaked, so the claim is both false and invalid:
 
"...the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill." and "[T]he FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government — no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal — that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out — and the Sunday night release proves this — that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis."
 
Napolitano also outlined that the FBI was created to gather information, not to judge a case. And a grand jury would normally decide such a situation. It is painfully obvious that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted. Instead of being grateful for being let off, amazingly, she is continuing to blame everyone but herself for her political loss and is going on the attack against political opponents. Clinton is confirming scripture, Ecclesiastes 8:11, that delayed justice, or justice that simply is never applied, tends to embolden those that break the law even more.

It is also obvious that there is a two-tier justice system developing in the US, wherein elite politicians that recklessly break laws are let off the hook, while regular citizens are often given no fair justice. Human governance and human justice will always be flawed, only pointing towards the perfect governance and perfect justice that will one day be established by the Messiah, who is the true and rightful king and lord of all creation. But in the mean time, increased injustice will only make life more miserable for society. Email-gate is just one of the many serious ethical and criminal subjects related to the Clintons. It is astounding how many former associates and potential whistle-blowers related to the Clintons have ended up dead. And just this April 8, 2017, WikiLeaks confirmed that murdered Seth Rich, not a computer hacker, was in fact the DNC information leak that revealed a DNC take down of Bernie Sanders and corruption related to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Do you agree that Hillary Clinton should probably be prosecuted for breaking laws? Do you believe that Clinton should be investigated regarding the murder of Seth Rich, who was just named by Wikileaks as the informant that leaked DNC corruption? Share this article and help to educate people about the facts that the biased MSM news outlets refuse to publish.

Tags: Hillary Clinton negligence, why Clinton cleared, Comey said intent was important, Clinton's unsecured server was illegal, Clinton lost laptop in the mail, 

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!