Witch of Benghazi: “No records. No tough questions.
And YOUR money? With that from HSBC, in your account”.
Posted on 07/15/2016 7:59:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Unfortunately for the country and the rule of law, FBI Director Comey’s public remarks at the FBI and before Congress last week raised many more questions than they answered about Hillary Clinton’s extremely carless use of private email, possession of classified information, and exchange of sensitive information across unsecured devices while Secretary of State.
The more salient questions are the following.
Why was Hillary not questioned by the FBI under oath? In the most basic of car accident cases, where nothing secret is on the line, and no foreign intelligence agencies are trying to steal sensitive information, all parties and witnesses are questioned under oath and subject to the threat of perjury. Yet Hillary was allowed to answer questions informally. Why?
Why was Hillary questioned so late in the investigation, on a Saturday of the 4th of July weekend, three days before Director Comey made his no prosecution recommendation? This suggests her testimony was not central to the investigation, but rather an after-thought. What would have happened if she would have dropped a bombshell during the Saturday interview? If the FBI investigation was likely wrapped up before they interviewed her, why did they interview her at all?
Why was there no written record of the FBI’s questioning of Hillary? To return to our car accident case example, every deposition in a civil litigation is recorded, under oath, by a certified court reporter, for the purpose of locking in a witness’ testimony in a permanent record, which allows an opposing party to impeach the witness’ credibility at trial if the witness changes his mind. In this case, there is no transcript from Hillary’s questioning, so Hillary’s credibility cannot be impeached in this way, though there is a plethora of evidence suggesting her credibility is in question.
Did Hillary lie to the American people, the Congress, or the FBI about her email practices? Based on Hillary’s (now known to be false) testimony before the Congress last fall on the Benghazi attack, juxtaposed with Director Comey’s detailed recitation before Congress of the falsity of her public statements (thank you Rep. Trey Gowdy), the nation knows that Hillary, for over six months, lied to everyone about the nature of her email server, the classified contents thereon, and what she sent and received over that server.
As America learned from Bill Clinton’s presidency, lying to the American public is not a crime per se, but lying to authorities, under oath, is. How rich that the next Clinton vying to be president may well be hamstrung by the same charge that ensnared the first Clinton, perjury. Along with perjury, officials may well want to consider obstruction of justice for Hillary and her team’s willful destruction of emails and refusal to turn over 30,000 documents to investigators.
Again returning to the basic civil litigation scenario, if after receiving a request for production of documents from an opposing party, a responding party destroyed 30,000 documents on their own, and fancifully claimed, as Hillary did, “nothing to see here, the emails were just about my yoga classes,” that party would be subject to monetary sanctions (fines) and evidence sanctions, precluding their ability to introduce evidence at trial.
When Hillary Clinton and her lawyers destroyed over 30,000 documents, claimed that many were lost forever, only to find out many were recoverable and contained classified information, what was the punishment? Was Hillary fined or sanctioned in any way? No.
Finally, how can Hillary possibly claim any entitlement to a security clearance after this episode? Top secret security clearances are not handed out based on popularity, but on need, careful screening of one’s background, and the promise to comply with the rules governing the handling of sensitive information. They are extremely expensive to obtain and are a privileged asset for any holder. Hillary has been shown to be extremely care less with the most sensitive information in our nation (“Special Access Privilege” documents). Yet she will retain her security clearance?
Much has been said about the David Petraeus incident, where he willingly gave classified information to his mistress/biographer and was prosecuted. But two distinctions deserve mention: first, no national security secrets were exposed there; and the mistress/biographer also had a top secret security clearance. Neither was true with Hillary’s email use. But instead of being prosecuted and kicked out of the presidential campaign, she is well on her way to the Oval Office. It’s good to be a Clinton.
Though Hillary may have escaped prosecution by Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department, she is clearly not out of the woods yet, because so many weighty questions remain to be answered, ensuring the last chapter has not been written on this tawdry episode.
I know one question that was answered very clearly: Does the law apply to everyone equally, or are the elites and well-connected exempt?
After Jon Corzine stole a gigabuck-and-a-half from MF Global with no adverse consequences, it was obvious our masters are exempt.
Queen Hillary has the answer for all these questions.
“Because I am Hillary and I am the Queen!”
How are FBI Director James Comey and a stuffed ferret alike?
They are both gutless weasels.
And so she can get away with it.
I have been puzzled at the timing of events.
In that, we had a year long complicated investigation done by the FBI.
Hillary was interviewed on a Saturday of a holiday weekend.
Comey came out on the following Tuesday morning, the first business day after Hillary’s interview, with his report.
It seems to me the report was already written, and the conclusions already drawn, before Hillary was interviewed by the FBI.
How did they, over a holiday weekend, pull together everything Hillary told them, combined with all other information they had, and produce a report so quickly??
Did lots of FBI workers get paid overtime/holiday pay over that weekend, to produce the report??
Was HIllary’s testimony really important to the final report?
Was the report already written up long before they talked to Hillary??
How the heck does Comey list out all of the shortcomings of Hillary’s email set up, but then conclude that there’s no prosecution warranted???
Many of the powerful and connected have been prosecuted. Just not Hillary. Long ago she made a deal with Satan.
#1 Why is Hillary above the law?
Testifying before Congress, AG Lynch dodged, bobbed, and weaved on a simple question:
Is it illegal to hand off classified materials to someone who does not hold a security clearance?
Demand Congress follow-up using these questions (hat tip SERKIT):
<><>Hillary was allowed to disclose classified data to others not holding security clearances, including her own attorneys and other aids outside the State Department,
<><> Are there documents that Hillary's people were shown that the Congressional Committee is not allowed to see?
<><> Can the Congressional committee see those same documents, un- redacted, as Hillary showed them to others?
<><> Since there was no criminal intent on Hillary's part (according to Comey), and criminal intent is required (according to Comey), what criminal intent would be necessary to show the oversight Committee the same documents?
<><> Why can't the Congressional committee see everything?
<><> What if Hillary gave those documents to the Committee - would that simply be careless....... or would it be criminal?
<><> would Comey give Congress a pass? (hat tip SERKIT)
The other unanswered question: was Comey blackmailed? Threatened? Or just bribed?
A few connected individuals have “political armor” and can’t be touched. Others not so much, but get punished as light as possible. There are also individuals who think they are untouchable; however they often get nailed and become the fall guy.
How many of the destroyed emails involved the Clinton Foundation and fraudulent transactions between State and the foundation as well as pay and play arrangements.
#2 How much does a year long investigation using 150+ agents
that comes to no rational conclusions cost the taxpayer?
...
BINGO! That's what Loretta told Bill on the plane in Phoenix. "Hey Bill, no worries, I told Comey to NOT recommend charges, and I will accept his recommendation." If she thought for 1 second that Comey might recommend charges, she NEVER would have blindly committed to accept his recommendation.
1. Who breached the air-gap between the State Dept SCIF and Hillary’s servers? There is no way to do this without violating the law. There is no way to do this unintentionally.
2. At whose direction? No one would dare do this unless they thought they had political air cover.
3. Are these people to be prosecuted? Of course not. We should be clear at this point in the arc of the Clintons’ reign of corruption how the system works.
4. Why not? A combination of willing cooperation and caution re Arkancide.
1. Was her husband's meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch a quid pro quo event?
2. Was there a gigantic conflict of interest with FBI Director James Comey on the Board of Directors of HSBC Holdings, the corporate parent of HSBC Bank, who has contributed a large sum of money to the Clinton Foundation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.