Hillary Clinton's "Watergate Moment," and the "Smoking Gun"?

Editor’s Note – Are we at a “Watergate Moment” now that we have learned of the “Smoking Gun” email that should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back concerning Hillary Clinton?

Will FBI Director Jim Comey send a set of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice as we believe he should?

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.13HoursBenghaziBook

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime.

It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax.

They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” (Read more here at Drudge.)

What will Lynch do if Comey does recommend prosecutions? We are certain Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from pursuing office for many other reasons not the least of which were he actions concerning Benghazi but this many individual felonious acts warrant a much swifter prosecution of the law than we have experienced because of her “special status”.

ClintonSullivanFBI

With the movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” coming to theaters next week, we believe America will demand that she be prosecuted.

We have not even mentioned all the questionable activity over the Clinton Foundation and numerous other issues but we are certain of one thing, America cannot afford another epic mistake in the election of our President after these past 7 years.

Hillary Clinton’s criminal probe will ‘come to a head’ in next 60 days; indictment likely, says ex-US attorney

By Frieda Powers – BPR BizPac Review

The ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails has not yet landed the Democratic candidate an interview with the FBI, but a former U.S. attorney thinks a criminal indictment could be coming in the next 60 days.

Former Republican U.S. attorney, Joe DiGenova, said a charge against Clinton personally would put the current administration in a very uncomfortable position, reported the Washington Examiner. The open FBI investigation is Clinton’s “biggest problem right now,” DiGenova said on the “Laura Ingraham Show” radio program, Tuesday.

%CODE%

DiGenova, a Republican who served as a federal prosecutor under former President Ronald Reagan, told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that the FBI’s
investigation has reached a “critical mass” and the evidence against the former secretary of state is damning. (The Blaze)

“They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,” he said. “And, it’s going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.”

Before making any findings public, the FBI would still likely need to interview the former secretary of state, DiGenova said. After months of investigating whether Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information on an unsecured network, FBI Director James Comey has not disclosed when the probe will conclude.

“It’s going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they’re not going to be able to walk away from it,” said DiGenova. “They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that’s just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives.”

While the Clinton campaign has insisted it is not a criminal investigation of the candidate personally, DiGenova maintained that the evidence otherwise is “compelling” and “overwhelming.” The Obama administration would find itself in a corner as the burden would lie with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to charge Clinton personally with a crime.

“The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary,” said DiGenova,  “is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.”

“I believe,” DiGenova added, “that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

 

RICO – McCarthy Calls Clinton Foundation a Racket

Editor’s Note – Once again, Andy McCarthy hits the nail on the head. The Clinton Foundation IS best defined as a RICO operation from all we are now learning. Maybe they can “justify” their actions individually, but when you collect all the parts, it is a racket.

The trouble is, would the Department of Justice consider it RICO? Would Loretta Lynch launch an investigation?

She is about to be voted upon for Attorney General finally and may win approval in the Senate, but would she act just like her predecessor, Eric Holder and avoid yet another investigation of a ‘friend of the family’ unlike Senator Menendez?

The Emerging Clinton Foundation Scandal

Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy – PJ Media

Is this the beginning … of RICO?

Okay, so that’s not quite as catchy as Edward G. Robinson’s immortal line. But it is what a good prosecutor would be asking while pondering the growing cloud around Clinton Foundation.

Among Little Ceasar’s imprints on popular culture is that Robinson’s mobster character, Cesare Enrico Bandello, inspired Congress to name its seminal anti-organized crime legislation “RICO” – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971. The mafia was its most infamous target, but far from its only target.

RICO.Justice

RICO makes it a crime to run an organization through what’s called a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The term racketeering is extensively defined in the statute. It includes acts involving bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice, to name just a few.

Prosecutors are fond of RICO because it enables them to unite disparate illicit or corrupt transactions into one framework, the enterprise. It need not be a mafia family or traditional criminal organization; it can be an ostensibly legitimate organization – e.g., a foundation, a labor union, a corporation, a guild – that, contrary to the image it projects publicly, commits sundry legal offenses in conducting its affairs.

As a matter of fact, if the pattern of offenses includes fraud and influence peddling, then the enterprise’s portrayal of itself as a caring, altruistic charitable foundation can be very helpful to the case. Juries do not like hypocrisy and shady dealing.HiilaryRICO

They get turned off by “charitable organizations” that turn out, in the main, to be vehicles for their principals to live lavishly, or covers for selling political influence. And juries know charitable organizations tend not to wipe their servers clean even after congressional investigators have instructed them to preserve evidence.

Plus, it is important to bear in mind that, at the moment, the political dimension of the Clinton Foundation scandal transcends the possibility of criminal or civil legal liability. Right now, the Clinton Foundation provides a stark reminder of the last enterprise these characters ran: the Clinton White House. Remember that one?

Campaign finance irregularities, selling influence (remember the Lincoln bedroom?), awarding pardons to fraudsters and terrorists for the purpose of rewarding donors and courting political constituencies, blatant obstruction of justice, and perjury.

You see the Hillary! 2016 campaign launch, you consider what we’re learning about the Clinton Foundation, and you naturally ask yourself: Do we really want to go through this again?

You consider the Clinton Foundation, you think about the State Department – Benghazi, the courting of the Muslim Brotherhood, the secret, unlawful email system, the foreign money pouring into Clinton coffers while Mrs. Clinton was making key decisions about American foreign policy – and you naturally ask yourself: What has Hillary Clinton ever run that did not turn into a debacle?

Finally, we should also consider the Obama administration’s legal standards. As I’ve recently discussed here at Ordered Liberty, the Justice Department has just filed its indictment of Senator Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) on various corruption charges. The prosecution’s theory is that Menendez accepted “things of value” in exchange for using his political influence to benefit a big time donor.

Sen. Menendez counters that he did nothing wrong – i.e., that there is no nexus between, on the one hand, the hefty contributions, private jet rides to ritzy resorts, and other posh gifts he received, and, on the other hand, the use of his office in ways that just happened to favor the donor.

We are still at a very early stage of scrutinizing the Clinton Foundation, but we can already say two things with confidence:

  1. The millions upon millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation has collected from foreign donors and others with significant self-interest in U.S. government policy – during a time when Mrs. Clinton had a key role (and the prospect of an even bigger role) in designing U.S. government policy – makes the gifts to Menendez look like chump change.
  2. To the best of our knowledge, Menendez never withheld his emails from the government or wiped his server clean.

Lynch Confirmation 50/50 – McCain Against Lynch

Editor’s Note – It is no surprise that Loretta Lynch’s confirmation to succeed Eric Holder as Obama’s Attorney General is on the cusp of needing a tie-breaking vote by VP Joe Biden. What is a surprise is that so far, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) may vote for her confirmation.

Fortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not going to vote yes:john-mccain-lindsey-graham

As two hefty primary challengers loom back home in Arizona ahead of his expected run for re-election to the U.S. Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has come out publicly against the nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General because of her support for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty.

“No he’s not voting for her, because she called the Obama executive action on immigration ‘reasonable,’” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in an email to Breitbart News in response to a breaking story from Politico that Lynch’s nomination is a “cliffhanger” that’s going down to the wire.

Only four Senate Republicans currently publicly support her, meaning that assuming all Democrats vote for her and no other Republicans do, she would have 50 votes—and Vice President Joe Biden would come in to cast the tiebreaker in favor of her nomination. (Read more at Breitbart.)

The vote is next week and we hope for all our sakes, and oddly, Graham’s Presidential aspirations that he changes his mind and follows in the footsteps of his running buddy, McCain.

Loretta Lynch nomination a cliffhanger

She currently has the bare minimum number of votes to succeed Eric Holder.

By Seung Min Kim – Politico

Just days before her nomination as attorney general goes to the Senate floor, Loretta Lynch is stubbornly stuck right around 50 votes — suggesting a confirmation fight the Obama administration once seemed certain to win with relative ease will go down to the wire.

Barring an 11th-hour surprise, Lynch is likely to be confirmed. But with four GOP senators currently backing her along with unanimous support from Senate Democrats, Lynch would secure the bare minimum required to be installed as the nation’s top cop – as long as senators hauled in Vice President Joe Biden to break a tie.AP124250231731-640x480

Several Republican senators who could have been potential “yes” votes are signaling ahead of the confirmation vote that that they will instead vote against her.

The overwhelming bloc of opposition from Republicans stems from President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, and Lynch’s confirmation is also plagued with remnants of congressional Republicans’ toxic relations with current attorney general Eric Holder.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said when he met with Lynch more than two months ago, he asked the federal prosecutor to lay out how the Justice Department’s agenda would differ than that of Holder, who’s led the Justice Department since 2009.

“She told me it would not be different,” Burr recalled of his conversation with the nominee. “I voted against Eric Holder and he’s lived up to exactly what I thought he would.”

But Lynch, who would be the first black woman to lead the Justice Department, is drawing potential opposition on other issues. Republican Sen. Dean Heller said in an interview that he is “leaning no” on the confirmation vote expected next week, a view that is based on Lynch’s answers to his concerns about how to regulate gambling.

The Nevada senator said Lynch’s responses to a letter he sent following up on the issue left him “not very comfortable.”

“She said she has very little knowledge of what occurred in the Wire Act,” a 1961 law that banned certain types of interstate gambling, Heller said. “And yet at the same time, she prosecuted illegal gambling, offshore gambling. You can’t be prosecuting illegal gambling and say you have very little knowledge of the Wire Act itself.”

The confirmation showdown is set for next week. Senate Majority Leader McConnell hasn’t indicated how he will vote, though two members of his leadership team – Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the fifth-ranking Republican – are confirmed “no” votes.

Senate Republicans who are backing her are Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Democrats have argued that Republicans’ anger over Obama’s executive actions on immigration – which would halt deportations and give work permits for more than 4 million immigrants here illegally – shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not to confirm Lynch. She said during her confirmation hearing in January that she believes the presidential directives are legal.

But that hasn’t swayed Republican senators, who say they were troubled by her stance on the immigration matter.