Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

03 August 2015

Hillary Clinton And The 'Searing Truth'

'Wow fellow citizen Aldo1887, I think you were actually able to list all the fake right wing "controversies" in one succinct list. That was amazing! Oh my goodness fellow citizen geezee, politicians getting money from lobbyists and then coincidentally doing things they want? That's shocking. I've never heard of such a thing before. Surely Ms. Clinton is the first politician to ever do such a thing, we're going to have to ... oh wait ... never mind. This is a perfect example of why people giggle at the endless list of right wing "conspiracy" theories. They've gone beyond silly.'

SearingTruth, 3 August 2015

The Espionage Act of 1917, now 18 U.S.C. ch. 37, says: 'It is a crime to knowingly remove such documents without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.' See: 18 U.S. Code § 1924.

The Obama administration has prosecuted more people under the 1917 Act than all of his predecessors combined. This, of course, includes General David Petraeus. He kept some classified documents in an unlocked desk drawer in the study of his Virginia home. He also shared some 'classified' information with his mistress. What was that 'classified information'? His schedule.

Hillary Clinton used an unsecured and unauthorised homebrew server in her home in Chappaqua exclusively throughout her four years at State. She claims that it was secure because Secret Service agents were at the house. It's weird how all of our national security agents couldn't prevent the Chinese hacking into the Office of Personnel Management and obtaining the highly-delicate, detailed, and intrusive records and security clearance reviews of 24 million current and former Federal employees and contractors, but Hillary Clinton continues to assert her 55,000+ pages of emails were secure because some agents were on the premises. Doesn't she know that actual, physical presence is unnecessary in cyberwarfare? If not, she is uniquely unqualified to serve as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

She further claims that none of her emails contained classified or sensitive information. Well, first of all, how can we ever know when she deleted many of them even though she was under a subpoena? Secondly, her assertion has been flatly contradicted by the Inspectors General at State. Of a sample of just 40 of her emails, 10% contained national security secrets or otherwise highly sensitive information. The State Department, itself, has warned that her emails likely contained hundreds of items that were classified. Moreover, Reuters, relying on multiple, high-level sources within the Administration and security agencies, reported that the emails that she did turn over contained classified information from FIVE national security agencies.

If one is unwilling to say that Secretary Clinton put her own ambitions and paranoia over the nation's security, then s/he must, at least, if being intellectually honest, admit that her behaviour was grossly negligent, which is the test under the Espionage Act, by the way. She knowingly acted and her intentions are under the law, frankly, irrelevant.

Under 18 U.S.C. ch. 37, each violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 is punishable up to 10 years in a maximum security prison. That means each document (email) 'knowingly remove(d) ...without authority...and retain(ed) without authority' is a separate charge. Now, I don't expect her to be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to dozens or hundreds of years in Leavenworth. Petraeus was forced to plead guilty to a Federal felony, pay a substantial fine, and be on probation for two (2) years. As a convicted felon, he also forfeited his right to vote, including in the 2016 Presidential election where the Democratic nominee acted more egregiously than he ever did.

Let me ask you this: Which method of obtaining American national security secrets would be harder and more perilous for Putin or the Chinese to obtain? Retrieving classified information from the unlocked desk drawer in the home of the Director of Central Intelligence Agency or hacking into the unsecured 'homebrew' server in Hillary Clinton's basement? Whose actions were more egregious? Who exponentially exposed more sensitive national security information and secrets?

My answer: The woman for whom General David Petraeus could not vote even if he wanted to.

And, yet, you will crawl over broken glass to put the Clintons back in the position of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom.

Now, THAT, my luv, is some seriously serious 'searing truth'.


Sandy Berger, a Democrat, removed, without authorisation, COPIES of five classified documents from the National Archives concerning Bill Clinton's handling of Al Qaeda's Millennial Plot prior to testifying before the 09.11 Commission. He did not destroy them. He was forced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of removing and retaining COPIES of classified information without authorisation. For this, he was sentenced to two years of probation, ordered to pay a fine of $50,000, required to perform 100 hours of community service, and was stripped of his security clearance for 3 years. To avoid being cross-examined on the matter by Bar Counsel, he permanently relinquished his licence to practise law. 

Secretary of Defence (1994-95) and Director of the CIA (95-96), John Deutsch, a Democrat, kept a small amount of classified information on his home computer for 'convenience' (Gee, where have I heard that excuse before?). For years the Clinton administration tried to cover this crime up and postpone any investigation. When Congress was finally informed, DOJ had no choice but to take a cursory look. AG Janet Reno declined to prosecute, but did refer the matter of his national security clearance to authorities to review. Since the statute of limitations had not run on this flagrant violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 and a Republican was about to be in the White House, President Clinton pardoned Deutsch on his last day in office. This event was lost in the uproar over Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, the largest tax cheat in American history, following the latter's wife, Denise, making a very large donation to the DNC.

Gen Petraeus, party affiliation unknown for certain, kept some classified documents in a drawer in the desk located in the study of his home in Virginia. He also shared the 'classified information' of his schedule with his mistress. Both the CIA and FBI referred this matter to the DOJ felony prosecution. For this violation of the law, Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, which was actually double the government's recommendation.

What makes Hillary Rodham Clinton so special, entitled and different from Mssrs. Deutsch, Berger, and Petraeus?

For those that believe she is honest, ethical, and speaks for the ‘common man and woman’…

She closed off part of Bergdorf-Goodman in order to get a $600 haircut. I wonder if it looks like the same 'do' she was sporting when under sniper fire in Bosnia with Sinbad the Comedian. Let's hear it for the 1% of the 1%!!!

On a serious note, she did do something: She told the nation for weeks that Benghazi was the result of a 'spontaneous protest' when she knew - at the time it was happening - that it was a terrorist attack. Emails and other documents have been produced as a result of a court order that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Hillary Clinton has always been unethical and a lying. Sh/t, she was even fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by its Chief of Staff and Counsel, Jeffrey Zeifman. In 2006, Zeifman, a DEMOCRAT, published a book, Hillary's Pursuit of Power. In the book, he wrote:

'(Hillary Clinton) engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.'