Jump to content

Ok, I Saved it Till Thursday...The Final Nail....


Recommended Posts

1 week before election, Wikileaks drops SMOKING GUN…

By Michelle Jesse, Associate November 1, 2016

56bb3f7bc46188316e8b4582-1000x640.jpg

 

 

Even as the FBI revives its investigation into Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email use as secretory of state, Wikileaks has dropped what would appear to be a smoking gun that should have gotten her charged in the first place.

You will recall that in July, when he announced he was not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey asserted that though she was “extremely careless,” she didn’t act with criminal intent.

“I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent,” Comey declared.

Since then, we’ve learned that Clinton’s team used the likes of everything from Bleach Bit to good ol’ fashioned hammers to delete emails related to the investigation. But if those were a bit too “indirect” to prove criminal intent, how about this email in the newest Wikileaks dump, dropped today?

“We are going to have to dump all those emails.” This, just as the news of her private server use broke publicly… and just two days before they were subpoenaed.

 

SMOKING GUN

John Podesta tells Cheryl Mills "we're going to have to dump all those emails" the day after subpoena. INTENT. #PodestaEmails25

 

As Zero Hedge reports:

In today’s, 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says “On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

The email, which indicates intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules– which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary’s email server – hit, and just days before Hillary’s press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home...Mills’ response: “Think you just got your new nick name.”

 

It is unclear which “Lanny” is referred to: the infamous former DOJ staffer Lanny Breuer who quit in January 2013 after telling Frontline that some banks are too big to fail, or, more likely Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues

It is also unclear – for now – which emails Podesta is referring to in the thread, but Podesta adds: “better to do so sooner than later.” We can hope that a subsequent response, yet to be leaked by Wikileaks, will provide more color.

If the exchange is shown to disclose intent to mislead, it will negate the entire narrative prepared by Clinton that she merely deleted “personal” emails and will reveal a strategic plan to hinder the State Department and FBI “investigation.”

This is the first time that particular exchange has emerged among the Podesta emails.

dump%201_0.jpg

Of course, these emails, obtained illegally, would likely not be admissible in a court of law. But makes you wonder, what other kinds of evidence of “intent” lurk among the 650,000 emails recently found on Huma’s account the FBI and Justice Department are combing through as we speak?

[This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 week before election, Wikileaks drops SMOKING GUN…

By Michelle Jesse, Associate November 1, 2016

56bb3f7bc46188316e8b4582-1000x640.jpg

 

 

Even as the FBI revives its investigation into Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email use as secretory of state, Wikileaks has dropped what would appear to be a smoking gun that should have gotten her charged in the first place.

You will recall that in July, when he announced he was not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey asserted that though she was “extremely careless,” she didn’t act with criminal intent.

“I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent,” Comey declared.

Since then, we’ve learned that Clinton’s team used the likes of everything from Bleach Bit to good ol’ fashioned hammers to delete emails related to the investigation. But if those were a bit too “indirect” to prove criminal intent, how about this email in the newest Wikileaks dump, dropped today?

“We are going to have to dump all those emails.” This, just as the news of her private server use broke publicly… and just two days before they were subpoenaed.

 

SMOKING GUN

 

John Podesta tells Cheryl Mills "we're going to have to dump all those emails" the day after subpoena. INTENT. #PodestaEmails25

 

As Zero Hedge reports:

In today’s, 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says “On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

The email, which indicates intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules– which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary’s email server – hit, and just days before Hillary’s press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home...Mills’ response: “Think you just got your new nick name.”

 

It is unclear which “Lanny” is referred to: the infamous former DOJ staffer Lanny Breuer who quit in January 2013 after telling Frontline that some banks are too big to fail, or, more likely Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues

It is also unclear – for now – which emails Podesta is referring to in the thread, but Podesta adds: “better to do so sooner than later.” We can hope that a subsequent response, yet to be leaked by Wikileaks, will provide more color.

If the exchange is shown to disclose intent to mislead, it will negate the entire narrative prepared by Clinton that she merely deleted “personal” emails and will reveal a strategic plan to hinder the State Department and FBI “investigation.”

This is the first time that particular exchange has emerged among the Podesta emails.

dump%201_0.jpg

Of course, these emails, obtained illegally, would likely not be admissible in a court of law. But makes you wonder, what other kinds of evidence of “intent” lurk among the 650,000 emails recently found on Huma’s account the FBI and Justice Department are combing through as we speak?

[This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]

 

 

IT IS SO PATHETIC THAT WE WERE TELLING PEOPLE HOW CORRUPT THESE CLINTONS ARE BEFORE THE FACT....NOW WE HAVE THE PROOF AND WE WERE OF COURSE PROVEN RIGHT...JUST LIKE WE ALWAYS ARE...AND THE LIBREJECTS ARE ALL BUTTHURT OVER THE MESSENGER......I THINK THE LIB VOTERS HAVE BECOME SO CORRUPT AND LOVERS OF LIES THEY CAN NO LONGER DISCERN MORALITY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14581387_584839571704158_819626352530295

"intent" appears Nowhere in the statute.

 

 

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793:

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(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 - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

 

She is Guilty of Felony Espionage.

Enjoy the White House

j5l94w.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES, Blue devil, you're right....It's what I TRY to explain to these sheep, but, either they don't have the ability to understand, or, their programming puts up a "FIREWALL", EVERY TIME THE LOGICAL PART OF THEIR BRAIN STARTS TO REALIZE THAT THEY'RE BACKING A CRIMINAL.........

 

"DANGER !!!...DANGER--DANGER--DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!"

 

There IS NO "INTENT", IN THE STATUTE....

 

SOME SAY HER ACTIONS, INVOLVING FOREIGN AGENTS, AMOUNT TO TREASON...

 

BUT EVEN WITHOUT TREASON, THERE ARE EIGHT FEDERAL STAUTES, SHE VIOLATED......

 

 

 

Eight Laws , Hillary Clinton Should Be Indicted For Breaking

 

 

 

 

 

hillaryohio-e1442233908990.jpg Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters in Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 10, 2015. (Youtube)

As a former Justice Department official, I have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions. The simple answer is yes — she, and perhaps some of her senior staff, could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes. But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she will be.

Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be incorrect or incomplete — and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations of federal criminal statutes have transpired.

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense.

Indictment?

The old adage, that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted, is bad news for any public servant who risks the compromise of classified information or otherwise violates any of the other federal criminal statutes listed above. Specifically, this Administration has a history of vigorously prosecuting and winning convictions in the mishandling of classified information and other criminal violations of the public trust.

However, Hillary Clinton is anything but a ham sandwich; and she knows it. She and her senior aides will not even be formally investigated by this Justice Department, much less indicted. The president will allow Hillary Clinton and her aides to “tough it out” for as long it is politically possible. However, if and when the political and public opinion costs of a “tough it out” tactic become too great, President Obama will simply use that famous pen of his to issue a succinct pardon and make formal mockery of the concept of equal justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES, Blue devil, you're right....It's what I TRY to explain to these sheep, but, either they don't have the ability to understand, or, their programming puts up a "FIREWALL", EVERY TIME THE LOGICAL PART OF THEIR BRAIN STARTS TO REALIZE THAT THEY'RE BACKING A CRIMINAL.........

 

"DANGER !!!...DANGER--DANGER--DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!"

 

There IS NO "INTENT", IN THE STATUTE....

 

SOME SAY HER ACTIONS, INVOLVING FOREIGN AGENTS, AMOUNT TO TREASON...

 

BUT EVEN WITHOUT TREASON, THERE ARE EIGHT FEDERAL STAUTES, SHE VIOLATED.......

 

 

 

Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Should Be Indicted For Breaking

 

 

hillaryohio-e1442233908990.jpg Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters in Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 10, 2015. (Youtube)

As a former Justice Department official, I have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions. The simple answer is yes — she, and perhaps some of her senior staff, could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes. But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she will be.

Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be incorrect or incomplete — and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations of federal criminal statutes have transpired.

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071( B) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States

18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television

18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”

18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense.

Indictment?

The old adage, that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted, is bad news for any public servant who risks the compromise of classified information or otherwise violates any of the other federal criminal statutes listed above. Specifically, this Administration has a history of vigorously prosecuting and winning convictions in the mishandling of classified information and other criminal violations of the public trust.

However, Hillary Clinton is anything but a ham sandwich; and she knows it. She and her senior aides will not even be formally investigated by this Justice Department, much less indicted. The president will allow Hillary Clinton and her aides to “tough it out” for as long it is politically possible. However, if and when the political and public opinion costs of a “tough it out” tactic become too great, President Obama will simply use that famous pen of his to issue a succinct pardon and make formal mockery of the concept of equal justice.

 

LIBERALS LOVE THAT HILLARY AND OBAMA ARE CORRUPT....THEY JUST HATE GETTING CAUGHT....AND IF THEY LIE THEIR WAY OUT....LIBERALS LOVE THEM EVEN MORE

 

 

LIBERALS ARE CREEPY

 

THIS CHICK IS CREEPED OUT

 

 

joe-biden-creep-AP-640x480.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

READ 'EM AND WEEP, LIBTARDS..............

 

EIGHT LAWS............

 

EIGHT LAWS, THAT ANYONE ELSE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, MANY OTHERS, HAVE BEEN SENT FOR LONG FEDERAL PRISON SENTENCES, FOR DOING FAR LESS, THAN THE WITCH DID...

 

THEY DIDN'T EVEN DESTROY LAPTOPS, IPADS, OR IPHONES, AND THEY WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON,

JUST FOR "MISHANDLING"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

READ 'EM AND WEEP, LIBTARDS..............

 

EIGHT LAWS............

 

EIGHT LAWS, THAT ANYONE ELSE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, MANY OTHERS, HAVE BEEN SENT FOR LONG FEDERAL PRISON SENTENCES, FOR DOING FAR LESS, THAN THE WITCH DID...

 

THEY DIDN'T EVEN DESTROY LAPTOPS, IPADS, OR IPHONES, AND THEY WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON,

JUST FOR "MISHANDLING"!

antieverything.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...