Die-Hard Bernie Sanders Backers See F.B.I. as Answer to Their Prayers

20160527_0845 Die-Hard Bernie Sanders Backers See F.B.I. as Answer to Their Prayers (nyt).jpg Die-Hard Bernie Sanders Backers See F.B.I. as Answer to Their Prayers
By Yamiche Alcindor, NYT

(May 27, 2016 8:45 a.m.) — ANAHEIM, Calif. — Senator Bernie Sanders may be trailing Hillary Clinton by hundreds of delegates, and Mrs. Clinton may be treating the Democratic nomination as hers, but Julie Crowell, a stay-at-home mother and a die-hard Sanders supporter, is holding out for an 11th-hour miracle: divine deliverance at the hands of the F.B.I.

Like many of Mr. Sanders’s supporters, Ms. Crowell, 37, said she hoped that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state would eventually yield an indictment, and she described it as the kind of transgression that would disqualify another politician seeking high office.

(Read more.)

Clinton to be interrogated by FBI over email scandal, possibly before California primary

20160506_1636 Clinton to be interrogated by FBI over email scandal (RT).jpg Clinton to be interrogated by FBI over email scandal, possibly before California primary
By RT.com

(May 6, 2016 16:36) — FBI investigators will interrogate Hillary Clinton in the coming weeks over her use of a private email server for state communications, according to officials cited by CNN late Thursday.

The news came after MSNBC interviewed the hacker “Guccifer,” who exposed the server containing 2,200 emails, 22 marked “top secret,” and claimed its security was easy to compromise.

(Read more.)

FBI at a Snails Pace: Grants Immunity to Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server

20160302_2020 Immunity Granted to staffer who set up Clinton email server (WP).jpg Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server
By Adam Goldman, WashingtonPost

(Mar. 2, 2016 20:20 pm) The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

Read more.

The Art of the Lie: Hillary Clinton’s Artful Avoidance and Obfuscation (Draft 1)

This is a rough draft Ver. 1

(Feb. 23, 2016) — During tonight’s CNN Town Hall meeting between democratic nominee hopefuls Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, the moderator asked Clinton about why she hasn’t released her $200k paid speech transcripts made with Goldman Sachs, and whether the private email server classified information mishandling investigation has impacted her campaign.

Clinton’s response might as well have been from Donald Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.” However, Clinton’s book would be named, “The Art of the Lie.”

If anyone who has been following the democratic candidates over the past year, one would be very familiar with the issues that arrise for each of the candidates along the way. The first time Clinton was asked about her paid speeches with Goldman Sachs, where she received over $600K for three speeches, was around when Lee Fang, a reporter with “The Intercept” began asking her about them, and was subsequently brushed off and laughed at.

Since, the request for the transcripts has been popping up without giving way. Clinton’s first response, which was during a broadcast debate with Sanders, she said she would, “look into it.” Now, and as artfully as she could, she is conditioning her release of those transcripts on actions of the other candidates. Namely, the republicans as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, has since, released what little transcripts he had. But this wasn’t enought for Clinton. She moved the goal post and is now requiring all the republican candidates to also release transcripts of any speeches they every made as well. This scored Clinton points in creative dodging (i.e., lying), and as such, is playing a page out of the book, “The Art of the Lie.”

Both her responses were misleading.

1) Transcripts – Basically, she has refused from the start to release claiming she will look into it. Now she has spouted how she wants everybody to release their transcripts 1st before she will follow.

2) Email – She tried to summarize this as another “attack” based issue.

1) Transcripts – My view – If she wants to be the leader of this country, and the leader of the Military (where soldiers have been sent to jail, subject to UCMJ actions for mishandling classified information.) why is she differing leadership to the other candidates to lead the releasing of transcripts for their paid speeches.

Its like, Clinton’s position is, “I won’t tell the truth (by releasing the transcripts) unless you tell the truth first.” Lastly, on this issue. First, the other candidates are not only asking, but the American people are asking her to release the transcripts. She doesn’t only have to come clean to the other candidates, but she has conditioned her coming clean on behalf of the interest of the American people on weather the other candidates will release their transcripts.

Does this sound familiar? Yes. It’s that tit for tat approach to dealing with a problem. This is what grid locks congress where Republicans and Democrats play this game back and forth in D.C. and nothing gets done. Thus, the same old tactics, gimmicks, and tricks. Meanwhile, while the game is afoot, the American people, as with the transcripts are marginalized because of how she wants to “play the game.” Because it is only a game for her. If she looses, she goes back to a cushy lifestyle.

2) Classified Email Breech:

Well, I sent an op-ed into the New York Times on this basically narrowing it down to how soldiers would face much more serious consequences for simply having a thumb drive used around official military equipment and computer in the course of communications. Here, she basically installed her own system, to intercept communications she needed to send, receive and store in the course of her work as a United States Secretary of State.

This is very serious. The idea that she setup this private system guarantees that she would be in control of distribution of its contents upon request. Therefore, she, once again, and with the intention of, developed a “buffer” between her and being accountable to the American people. As she is now doing above, with the speech transcripts as well.

She is enabling her ability to come clean with transcripts or email contents behind an action depending on a third party.

With respect to the Transcripts – she is hinging her actions on the Republican’s to first make a move (Bernie has already done it); and with respect to the emails, she hinged her ability to act on the limitations of the system she setup to begin with (third party device). The private server enabled her to “loose” thousands of emails, and then slowly seep out the information, in hard printout form (can’t be searched” on her terms. What is most disingenuous is how she designed this in advance, a premeditated act with the anticipation of being able to obstruct when needed.

Doesn’t the NSA Already have Clinton’s Email Communications?

You know, with all of the Edward Snowden revelations, and Glenn Greenwald’s reporting on the government surveillance systems, the hijacking of emails and voice transmissions, and the like, wouldn’t you think that the NSA, or the DHS, Google, Microsoft, as such would all have copies of Clinton’s private email server communications?

If then, then why haven’t they provided the investigation with same?

Or, why hasn’t the FBI gotten an order, like they did with Apple, to forensically pry any and all databases open to recover the information form all sources?

Who is the director of the FBI?

FBI Facts: (Wikipedia)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as the nation’s prime federal law enforcement organization. Operating under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI is concurrently a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.[2] A leading U.S. counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization, FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.[3]

FBI Director Appointments:

Current FBI Director:

James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Appointed by Barack Obama (Friends with Hillary Clinton):

In May 2013, it was reported, and in June 2013 it was made official, that President Barack Obama would nominate Comey to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing outgoing director Robert Mueller.

Standards for Appointments:

FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They must be confirmed by the United States Senate and serve a term of office of five years, with a maximum of ten years, if reappointed, unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends.

EmailGate: Hillary Clinton Aide set to Testify

20160223_1936 Aides email-server testimony could throw Clinton campaign (WP).jpgAides’ email-server testimony could throw Clinton campaign a curveball
By Spencer S. Hsu and Rosalind S. Helderman February 23 at 7:36 PM Washington Post

(Feb. 23, 2016) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that top aides to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email server as secretary of state, raising new political and legal complications for Clinton as she tries to maintain momentum for her campaign.

The ruling granted a request from the conservative group Judicial Watch, which sought testimony from State Department officials and members of Clinton’s inner circle to determine whether Clinton’s email arrangement thwarted federal open-records laws.

Read more.

Is former President Bill Clinton’s wife Hillary Clinton too big to Jail? Clinton vs. Patreaus Case Analysis

WASHINGTON (Jan. 29, 2016) — There are laws on the books for walking an elephant down the road during rush hour traffic from back in the day when elephants were used for the transportation of goods.

Since every human act has been codified into a crime at one time or another, merely finding appropriate criminal code to prosecute former President Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary Clinton, is not the problem. There has been enough information reported thus far to bring charges against her for having mishandled classified information by using private email servers.

So the real question is, “Is Hillary Clinton too big to jail?”

Any criminal prosecution would also be subject to the resources of Mrs. Clinton having a well financed criminal defense team both in terms of actual attorneys to defend the case in court, and the other members of her team used to lobby on her behalf to all of her deep seeded contacts.

The Permission to Prosecute Phase

Lets pretend for just a minute that a junior prosecutor actually gets the green light to launch a prosecution against the former president’s wife. Then what?

The Indictment Process

Any prosecution of Mrs. Clinton would most likely go through the indictment process.

Without regard to the pros and cons of the effectiveness of the indictment process, consider the matter was put forth toward the indictment process if for the sole reason to give the illusion of prosecutorial impartiality by placing the decision to file charges upon the shoulders of the grand jury members empaneled for the indictment.

In this brief analysis of any potential criminal prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, it is a given that at any point along the way any number of motions or pleadings could be filed which can either dismiss the proceedings all together, or stretch it out. And like in the case against Julian Assange, any indictment can be easily manipulated without regard.

The Criminal Prosecution

As with any good political thriller, a prosecution launched against deep seeded politicians, as it would be against a former president’s wife, would be unpredictable at best.

Look how long it took Special Prosecutor Kenneth Star to resolve his investigations into matters surrounding former president Bill Clinton which included the: 1) suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster; 2) Whitewater real estate investment scandals; and the 3) extramarital affair that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky scandal. Star’s investigation merely ended with him filing a report with congress called the Starr Report.

Throughout Starr’s investigation, it was later determined that former president Bill Clinton lied about the affair with Lewinsky, which led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of his law license.

So like her husband’s criminal matters, Mrs. Clinton’s criminal proceedings would most likely be subject to a roller coaster of criminal justice twists and turns. None of which would resemble those types of criminal prosecutions regular citizens’ find themselves subject to on a daily basis for crimes as small as possession of marijuana.

The Conviction and Sentencing Phase

Okay, lets say that the criminal prosecution of Hilliary Clinton results in a conviction, and after all the appeals were filed taking several years to resolve, Mrs. Clinton finally is convicted and sentenced for crimes connected with private server, classified email “emailgate” scandal.

Does one really think she will actually be taken into custody and imprisoned? Well, if the case was against a regular citizen, you betcha. However, lets use former U.S. Army General David Patreaus’s 2012 case as an example of potential sentencing Mrs. Clinton may be subjected to.

The Patreaus case involved an extra marital affair between Patreaus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. In 2012 Broadwell went off the extramarital affair leash and began sending harassing emails to a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses, Jill Kelley. Kelly reported the emails to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In the course of the FBI’s investigation in the later part of 2012, they discovered a connection between Broadwell and Patreaus who both had access to an email account investigated in the case.

When the FBI took a closer look into the emails, it discovered that: 1) Patreaus in fact was having an affair with Broadwell, and incidentally, that 2) Patreaus had engaged in the felonious act of providing classified information to Broadwell as well. Purportedly for purposes of writing the biography of Patreaus.

At the end of the day, the criminal prosecution was circumvented by way of the plea bargaining procedure.

In March 2015, Petraeus eventually plead guilty in federal court to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. So more than three years after the affair between Pateaus and Broadwell took a turn, the results of the investigation and criminal prosecution led to a mere two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000.

On top of that, Patreaus was permitted to receive a military retirement package as a general. Despite public outcry to have him demoted in light of the disgrace of the mishandling classified information and extra-marital affair. Soldiers are subject to United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action if they are married, and have an affair. Patreaus, a top military leader, did not suffer any military prosecution for the extra-marital affair because he had retired before the affair became public.

It is a logical conclusion to theorize that the type of “slap on the wrist” outcome seen in the Patreaus case would also been seen in a potential criminal case against Mrs. Clinton for the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.”

Post Conviction – Commutation and Pardon

More serious criminal cases have fallen under the commutation and pardon blessings of past presidents. Take for instance the famous 1974 kidnapping case of Patricia “Patty” Hearst, the granddaughter of American publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst.

In 1974 Patty Hearst was kidnapped by members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). Hearst would eventually be found 19-months later but not after being implicated in a bank robbery which she claimed she was forced to participate in while being held captive by the SLA.

In 1976, Patty Hearst was convicted of bank robbery and the use of a firearm in a felony. She was sentenced to seven years.

In 1979, former president Jimmy Carter eventually commuted Hearst’s sentence only after 22-months.

On Jan 20, 2001, Patty Hearst eventually receive a pardon from president Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

It is not surprising that a wealthy well connected individual like Patty Hearst’s would be able to receive both a commutation and a pardon from two former presidents. It is also clear that Hearst’s crimes were far more serious than Mrs. Clinton’s potential crimes associated with the email scandals she currently is under investigation for.

So its not a far fetched idea that Mrs. Clinton would be a front runner to receive both a commutation and a pardon for any convictions she would get. Especially since she is the wife of a former president, Bill Clinton.

Final Verdict

In the rare case actual criminal charges were waged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with her using private email servers for classified emails when acting in her official capacity as a government official, she definitely would not be prosecuted under the same criminal justice stratosphere most Americans are prosecuted under in this country.

Her solid government connections, to include being the wife of a former president, would most likely provide her a wealth of opportunities not available to the average American charged with a crime. The very same citizens she has been asking to vote for her during her 2016 run for president of the United States.

At the end of the day, it can easily be projected that any well funded criminal defense team for Mrs. Clinton would simply lay out the potential prosecution scenario briefly outlined above with the hopes of entering into a plea deal.

Add a little grease to the rails by including ‘invisible kickback icing’ on the prosecutor’s future career cake, and it would be highly unlikely any formal proceedings will ever be seen against Mrs. Clinton for the email fiasco.

Even if after a successful prosecution was completed, if we apply the Patreaus precedent, Mrs. Clinton’s final punishment would be reduced to a mere misdemeanor and fine.

(c) 2016 PublicSkeleton.com

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Youtube