Wednesday, October 28, 2015


What could bring Hillary down? According to some who have followed the case closely, Mrs. Clinton could be charged with breaking several laws, including willfully transmitting or retaining Top Secret material using a private server, unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or storing such information in an unauthorized location, lying to Congress, destruction of government property (wiping the server), lying under oath to a judge about having given the government all her emails or obstruction of justice.

This last misdeed seems particularly dangerous for Clinton. On September 20, 2012, nine days after the attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations (part of the committee on Oversight and Government Reform), requested from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all documents related to the Libya event. The broad request included all records, including emails. For a year, the State Department responded in dribs and drabs to the request; notably, no emails were handed over. A frustrated Oversight Committee finally (in August 2013) issued two subpoenas – one covering the initial documents request and another for the results of the internal investigation that exonerated Clinton.
It was not until August 2014 – nearly two years after the attacks and the first request for documents -- that the first Clinton emails appear, and that Congress becomes aware of the existence of her private server. Only in February 2015 is Congress alerted that Clinton has only made available some of her records. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times breaks the story that Hillary has turned over 55,000 pages of emails and more subpoenas follow. The obfuscation only worsens, as she claims to have destroyed some 30,000 “personal” emails, despite a Congressional “preservation letter” telling her to protect any records.


  1. I make no comment on Williams post but I do have a question. I clicked onto the first reference "Charged with breaking several laws" and was connected to a publication "Daily Caller:". If this is an authority for the piece by William, could someone please advise as to the hard copy circulation of the publication.

    Here in Aust we seem to have few publications of this nature available mainstream, in fact I would have to search quite assiduously to find any at all. In addition to the above, what influence, if any, do publications such as Daily Caller have on the general populace?.
    I apologize for the seemingly pointless question but my knowledge of publishing in US is limited to Rupert Murdoch and the late Random Hurst. To more fully understand the electoral debates, I need to get a handle on other than the mainstream media.

    Cheers from Aussie

    1. A little something from the Huffington Post, left leaning:;_ylt=A86.JyEIUTFWsGUANSknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMXM3OWtoBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM4BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

      Two laws apply to the mishandling of classified data on unsecure networks.

      The first is 18 USC Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year.

      That statute was used to prosecute retired Army General David Petraeus, a former CIA director who provided classified documents to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $40,000 fine as part of a plea deal in March.

      A second federal statute that prosecutors could use to charge Clinton and her aides is 18 USC Sec. 793, a more serious felony statute .

      That law covers national defense information and people who misuse it to injure the United States or benefit a foreign power.

      Those convicted of violating that law face fines and up to 10 years in prison.

    2. Lou
      My thanks. Huff Post article, even with its left leaning bias has a point. The law HRC is accused of breaking appears not to have become effective until she had left office. The Blogs following the article appear to support this contention, we must however remember the political bias of the publication.
      Perhaps time for another question. Do the Dem supporters care about the raking over of the coals of long dead fires? Do the undecided independents give credence to the Pub bias in the Gowdy hearings and most important of all, have any of the Pub candidates given any indication that they could be a better POTUS than HRC. Am I being unfair to suggest that the complete system needs overhaul as you are now not getting a chance to elect someone who deserves the job on merit?.

      I must look into your references, they will, as always, prove to be worth pursuing

      Cheers from Aussie

    3. Both parties are much the same.

      During the Bush years the right screamed to no end about the travesty of blaming Bush for his transgressions, i.e. Iran when his decisions were based on information provided by the CIA.

      Today the left screams bloody murder over the what difference does it make for Hillary's transgressions.

      As a side note, some would say anyone with a brain larger than a gnat would always use a government server to prevent possible sensitive information from being hacked.

      The Times said most experts believed private email accounts should only be used for official government business in emergencies, according to the Times.

      Clinton’s penchant for private email would indeed run afoul of the current law on the books—but likely not the rules that were in place while she served as President Obama’s secretary of state between 2009 and 2013. Under a law passed this past November, a government official can use private email accounts to conduct government business—but only if that official copies or forwards the email to his or her government account within 20 days.

      The law was passed specifically due to the indiscretions of Clinton.

      My opinion, she will skate free.


      People are tired of the clown show called Hillary's server.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Yes we are tired of hearing about the damn emails.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.