From 2009 through 2013, the “congenitally devious” Hillary Clinton created “a hacker-friendly, slap-dash private email system while she headed the U.S. Department of State to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional oversight, and steer money to the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”
Among the thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton sent through the system were many that were classified; a clear violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 – gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
It is quite possible that many enemy foreign nations, including Russia, obtained some of these emails by hacking into Hillary’s private server, thereby compromising U.S. national security interests. Nevertheless, James Comey, then-director of the FBI, reinterpreted federal law to claim that no reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary.
This was not a true statement.
Importantly, as was discovered much later, Comey actually started working on his public statement giving Clinton a legal pass before the FBI had even gotten around to speaking with 17 witnesses in the probe, including Clinton and two of her senior aides.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, which gave Russia control of more than 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Prior to this decision, the FBI had collected evidence that the Russians had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and that Russian officials had given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
But only one prosecution followed from this investigation, in 2014, that of a Russian businessman.
Russian money given to the Clinton Foundation, in return for a secretary of state’s vote to give controlling interest in a uranium company to Russia, may indicate the necessary quid pro quo to show that Hillary was bribed by the Russians, a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201 – bribery of public officials and witnesses.
Please keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation – Bill and Hillary’s ‘charitable’ organization – is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code that looks suspiciously like an influence-peddling operation for the Clinton family. During its years in operation, from 1997 through today, including years during which both Bill and Hillary served in public office, and during other years when Hillary Clinton sought the presidency (twice), it received an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals. Among the foreign nations donating money were such problematic governments as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and, of course, Russia. The Clintons used their foundation to go from (supposedly) being in debt, to building a fortune of over $130 million.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee bankrolled the Steele dossier – named for its British writer, Christopher Steele, which claimed that Donald Trump had strong ties to, and was by implication controlled by, Putin’s Russia. Much of this information came from Russian officials whom Steele paid for the information. (Is this collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russia?) By the way, the company that Steele was working for was Fusion GPS, which has worked for the Russian government on other matters. (Sure does seem likes collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russian President Vladimir Putin.)
Perhaps the most ridiculous charge in this Steele dossier was that Donald Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a hotel room bed in Russia for his supposed enjoyment. This charge ignores the well-known fact that Donald Trump is a germaphobe. The funding of this Steele dossier may be illegal, as the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S. Code § 30101, prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns, and 52 U.S. Code § 30121 prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money. Also suspicious is how the Steele dossier, which former FBI director Comey dismissively described as “salacious and unverified,” somehow became credible enough to be funded by Comey’s FBI, and was taken seriously by other U.S. intelligence agencies. (John Brennan, former CIA Director under President Obama, and former voter for the Communist Party, may be responsible for that.)
In 2017, just this month, former DNC Chairman Donna Brazile made allegations against Hillary Clinton’s campaign, saying that before the Democratic primaries had even started, the insolvent DNC was forced to sign an agreement giving the Clinton campaign partial control over party decisions and party money. Brazile said the DNC and the Clinton team created a fundraising agreement in August 2015 that essentially allowed the Clinton campaign to funnel money designated for state parties and the DNC back to its own coffers. This is important because it allowed the Clinton campaign to evade federal campaign law limits on campaign donations. Right now, donors can only give a candidate like Clinton a maximum of $2,700 for the primary, and $2,700 for the general election. But under the agreement, these same donors could also give much larger amounts to the DNC and the state parties, confident all the while that Clinton’s campaign would have full control over that money (as if it was a direct donation). And this all occurred before Clinton had even won the nomination.
Currently, the Department of Justice has empowered a runaway special counsel named Robert Mueller to investigate supposed collusion between presidential candidate Donald Trump and his campaign, and Putin’s Russia. There is virtually no evidence of any of this supposed collusion. However, this same Justice Department, although led by a Republican attorney general, has so far not seen the need to authorize another special counsel to seek out credible evidence that the other presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state, and her presidential campaign, broke numerous laws including the bribery of public officials, evading donor limits, and paying for foreign campaign assistance from Russia (i.e., corruptly colluding with Russia on the 2016 campaign), among other things.
This needs to change.
Hillary Clinton is a real special politician, who has somehow managed to cram enough corruption into her 25-year-plus political career (in tandem with her husband’s) to dwarf the combined illegalities of five other presidents combined. As such a special person, I believe she needs a special counsel to investigate her multiple shenanigans, as soon as possible.
Will someone please wake up Attorney General Jeff Sessions?