Sunday, July 17, 2016

Why Hillary Clinton’s Email Case Is Still Not Closed

Comey, Lynch, CNN will answer to public outrage over blatant cover-up  

By Eric Zuesse

Normally, when the head of the FBI under one President says something like "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," as the FBI reported regarding Hillary Clinton's emails, that would be the end of the matter; but Clinton actually still isn’t off the prosecutorial hook of this criminal case, unless and until she becomes President herself. The decision as to whether or not to prosecute her on this matter is not made by the FBI Director, but by the Attorney General. 

The current one, Loretta Lynch, was appointed by (and holds her job at the discretion of) the man who has endorsed Ms Clinton to become his own successor: the current US President, Barack Obama. If Clinton doesn’t become the next President, the next Attorney General won’t be appointed by Clinton, and that person will then be making any decision as to whether or not to present the Clinton emails case to a grand jury; and, if an indictment results, then to present it to a trial jury.

Even the Obama appointee to be the FBI’s chief, Mr Comey, introduced his statement there, by acknowledging that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." As regards his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," reasonable prosecutors already have brought such cases, and they have won convictions on these cases. So, just based on that record, Mr Comey clearly lied there.

The independent journalist who goes by the pseudonym "Tyler Durden" headlined, only a day after Mr Comey on July 5th exonerated Ms Clinton, "Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For ‘Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials’," and that conviction was won on the same statute for which Comey as Clinton’s would-be policeman, jury, and judge, has peremptorily exonerated her (exonerated his own next boss if she becomes President). "Durden," at his Zero Hedge site, noted: "Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom [California], who pleaded guilty to ‘unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials’ without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t@DavidSirota)." 

He linked to this case. If that’s not the spitting-image of what Clinton was investigated by the FBI for, then nothing is – but Nishimura did far less of that crime than Clinton did – and yet he was sentenced "to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance." As America’s President, Ms Clinton wouldn’t even qualify to receive the CIA’s daily national security brief. But, according to Mr Comey, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He simply lied.

Furthermore, even before Comey had announced Clinton’s exoneration, Josh Gersten at Politico had already headlined on 27 May 2016, "Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails," and he reported that, "A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus … To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved."

However, even Mr Comey noted in his statement of exoneration of Ms Clinton, that, among the tens of thousands of Clinton’s emails that were able to be recovered after she had tried to destroy them all, were the following: "Eight of those [email]chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were 'up-classified’ [by the State Department during its reconstruction of her email record] to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent." Some of the emails that Clinton had tried to destroy had, in fact, been marked "Confidential»," "Secret," and even "Top Secret."

Consequently, when Politico’s reporter, Mr Gersten, exonerated Clinton by saying (and leaving it at that), "Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved," he was quoting (without even challenging) a liar. That standard (Hillary’s having been sending and receiving information that was classified at the time) was reported by Mr Comey to have actually been met, for her prosecution – Comey simply chose to deny that reality, by then saying, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He undeniably lied.

On July 6th (the same day as the report from "Tyler Durden"), the Hillary Clinton propaganda-site Slate headlined, from their Fred Kaplan, "The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Was Totally Overblown: We learned nothing new from the investigation or James Comey’s statement." 

He wrote: "Did she commit a crime? Would anyone else – a lower-ranking official, someone who’s not a presidential candidate, someone who’s not named Clinton – have been charged with a crime? 

Absolutely not. And Comey said as much. 

"Our judgment," he said, "is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." In the annals of the Justice Department’s history, he went on, "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts." 

That type of ‘reporting’ is called stenographic ‘journalism’: it’s exactly what America’s press did with regard to ‘Saddam’s WMD,’ for which fabricated reason we invaded Iraq in 2003. Stenographic ‘journalism’ is still the US norm. The American press hasn’t changed since then.

On July 9th, Salon bannered "DOJ veterans weigh in on FBI Director James Comey’s handling of Clinton email probe," and reported many serious irregularities – and false assertions by Comey – in the FBI Director’s handling of this matter.

CNN - known now as "Clinton News Network" - along with major Clinton donor and fraud CNN "journalist" Anderson Cooper has continually and ceaselessly covered for her crimes

However, the huge scandal of the FBI’s handling of this matter goes far deeper than any of this, because the real mega-scandal here is that the FBI were extremely selective in regards to what federal criminal laws they would investigate her for having possibly broken. There are at least six federal criminal laws which accurately and unquestionably describe even what Ms Clinton has now publicly admitted having done by her privatized email system, and intent isn’t even mentioned in most of them nor necessary in order for her to be convicted – the actions themselves convict her, and the only relevance that intent might have, regarding any of these laws, would be in determining how long her prison sentence would be.

I have already presented the texts of these six laws (and you can see the sentences for each one, right there), and any reader can easily recognize that each one of them describes, without any doubt, what she now admits having done. Most of these crimes don’t require any intent in order to convict (and the ones that do require intent are only "knowingly… conceals," or else "with the intent to impair the object’s … use in an official proceeding," both of which "intents" would be easy to prove on the basis of what has already been made public – but others of these laws don’t require even that); and none of them requires any classified information to have been involved, at all. It’s just not an issue in these laws. 

Thus, conviction under them is far easier. If a prosecutor is really seeking to convict someone, he’ll be aiming to get indictments on the easiest-to-prove charges, first. That also presents for the prosecutor the strongest position in the event of an eventual plea-bargain. As Alan Dershowitz said, commenting on one famous prosecution: "They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case." Comey didn’t. His presentation was simply a brazen hoax by him. That’s all.

That’s the real scandal, and nobody (other than I) has been writing about it as what it is – a hoax. But what it shows is that maybe the only way that Clinton will be able to avoid going to prison is by her going to the White House. Either she gets a term in the White House, or else she gets a (much longer) term in prison – or else our government is so thoroughly corrupt that she remains free as a private citizen and still above the law, even though not serving as a federal official.

If Donald Trump doesn’t soon start talking about each one of those six laws, then his supporters should be asking him whether he himself is hiding something, because those six laws make crystal-clear that Hillary Clinton committed serious crimes, such that, even if she is convicted only on these six slam-dunk statutes (and on none other, including not on the ones that Comey was referring to), she could be sentenced to a maximum of 73 years in prison (73=5+5+20+20+3+10+10). Add on others she might also have committed (such as the ones that Comey was referring to, all of which pertain only to the handling of classified information), and her term in prison might be lengthier still.

Motive is important in Ms Clinton’s email case, because motive tells us why she was trying to hide from historians and from the public her operations as the US Secretary of State: was it because she didn’t want them to know that she was selling to the Sauds and her other friends the US State Department’s policies in return for their million-dollar-plus donations to the Clinton Foundation, and maybe even selling to them (and/or their cronies) US government contracts, or why? However, those are questions regarding other crimes that she might have been perpetrating while in public office, not the crimes of her privatized email operation itself; and those other crimes (whatever they might have been) would have been explored only after an indictment on the slam-dunks, and for further possible prosecutions, if President Obama’s people were serious about investigating her. They weren’t. Clearly, this is selective ‘justice’.

So, the basic question here is: Is this a democracy, at all? Or, are some people just brazenly above the law?

The character and content of this country are at stake here. This issue is important not only as substance, but as symbolism. Of course, that’s also true with any criminal conviction or refusal even to prosecute; but, in Clinton’s email case, the symbolism is simply enormous: it’s a bold statement, to the entire world, about today’s America, and about whether this government’s routine pontifications, regarding other nations’ not being "democratic," are little – if at all – more than a very black pot deriding some kettle for not being sufficiently white. 

A crony-capitalist country is in no moral position to dictate anything to the rest of the world. Hiding what it is (a foul oligarchy), only makes what it is, even worse, and more dangerous. Its allies – in NATO, the EU, and elsewhere – are then members of an international gang, which has no justifiable reason even to exist, and which is incredibly harmful not only to their own people, but to all nations. And, if the next US President refuses to prosecute this case, then the continuation of hiding it, the continuation of that cover-up, will not only be blatant; it will show, to the entire world, that nothing short of a revolution can rectify the situation in America. If this country is that crooked at the top, what can it be down below?

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

WAYNE MADSEN: The Three "Maidens Of War" Are Angling For A Kill

WWIII in skirts

By Wayne Madsen

By the time the 43rd G-7 summit convenes from May 26-27 next year in Taormina, Sicily, German chancellor Angela Merkel will be joined by at least one female colleague, British Prime Minister Theresa May, described as "Margaret Thatcher on steroids," and quite possibly a third, the war hawk Hillary Clinton representing the United States. Sicily may not be able to withstand the presence of two highly-volatile threats on the island, the unpredictable Mount Etna, along with the three "Maidens of War" – Merkel, May, and Clinton.

Theresa May
Merkel, of course, is the grand dame of Cold War-era saber-rattling. In words that could have emanated from the lips of a previous German chancellor, Adolf Hitler, Merkel called the massing of NATO troops on Russia’s borders with Poland and the Baltic states a "deeply defensive concept." Hitler used similar language to describe Germany’s buildup of troops in 1939 on its borders with Poland. The troops, Hitler argued, were to defend Germany from the aggression posed by Poland. Like Hitler, Merkel today justifies such troop buildups on the Russian border as merely "defensive" in nature. 

NATO’s actions, since its inception in 1949, have never been "defensive." NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, an action brought about by the husband of the woman who wants to join Merkel and May in Sicily in May 2017, is a case in point. NATO’s actions against Yugoslavia were purely those of an aggressor.

History repeats
As for NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, that civil war-wracked nation was never a threat to Europe. The United States became the first NATO state to invoke the collective self-defense security measures of Article 5 of the NATO charter as a mere cheap publicity stunt to create global support for Washington’s nebulous "war on terror." Merkel’s excuse for sending a full German battalion to the Lithuanian border with Russia was decried by her own Foreign Minister in her Christian Democratic "Grand Coalition" with the rival Social Democrats. 

It was Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the Social Democrats who warned NATO against "saber-rattling and war cries" directed against Russia. Merkel’s own Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, also of the Social Democratic Party, has been a critic of renewed European Union sanctions against Russia, something that is being pushed hard by Merkel. The world could only hope that it might be Gabriel or Steinmeier who would join May and Clinton in Sicily in 2017, but Merkel shows no signs of leaving the post of chancellor any time soon.

The second war maiden due to be in Sicily for G7/43 is Theresa May, the British Home Secretary who succeeded David Cameron as British prime minister after the Brexit referendum on continued UK membership in the EU. May, like Cameron, supported a "Remain" vote and, although May has said there should be no second referendum, she and Merkel may plot in behind-the-scenes coffee klatches to seek some sort of "third way" solution.

As Home Secretary, May has been the "Queen of Surveillance." May has served in the office of Home Secretary longer than any recent predecessor and she has supported every Orwellian system of spying and data collection that came to her desk.

May’s pet project has been the Investigatory Powers Bill, currently before the House of Lords. Also dubbed the "snooper’s charter," the proposed surveillance bill would give law enforcement and the intelligence services broad powers to access a full year’s worth of stored Internet browsing data and carry out the bulk collection of raw data. The law, if enacted, would make Britain the world’s foremost surveillance society. May had also championed the placement of intrusive video surveillance systems across the United Kingdom.

May’s bill also permits the government to hack into any computer system or data network of its choosing. The language in the bill mandates that the government could employ "a range of techniques used by the equipment interference agencies that may be used to obtain communications, equipment data or other information from the equipment. The material so obtained may be used evidentially or as intelligence, or in some cases, may be used to test, maintain or develop equipment interference capabilities." "Equipment interference capabilities" is a just a British upper crust high tea expression meaning "hacking."

May, like Merkel and US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, is a war hawk. May voted to send British troops to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, May voted for the House of Commons bill authorizing Britain to join the war in Iraq, which, as is now known from the Chilcot Inquiry report on the war, was based on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s deceit and outright lies about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. May also favors Britain retaining its fleet of Trident nuclear submarines, a view that is most welcome in the halls of NATO.

The third war maiden who would attend the first-ever G7 summit having three female leaders present is Mrs Clinton. Like May, Clinton voted, as a senator, to commit forces to war in Iraq. Although Clinton is a Democrat and May is a Conservative, in the neoconservative/neoliberal political world, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between mainstream conservatives and liberals – they are all controlled by corporate elites who ensure that governments sing from the very same pro-globalization and anti-labor song sheet.

For Israel, the three war maidens will be a God-send. Unlike Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has been a reasoned critic of Israeli policies – and is paying a political price for it – May is a champion of Israel and its draconian policies in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. 

Mrs Clinton has made strengthening US ties with the fanatic right-wing regime of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu a primary foreign policy goal of her administration. As for Merkel, the German chancellor has only heaped praise on Israel and has continued to supply German submarines to the increasingly-apartheid state.

The arrival of the three war maidens in Sicily next May will cause the world to shudder. However, there is another female leader-in-waiting who would be in a position of stopping any joint aggressive stance by Merkel, May, and Clinton. 

The French presidential elections are scheduled for April 23 and May 7, 2017. The French National Front leader Marine Le Pen has been running neck-and-neck with incumbent President Francois Holland in opinion polls. 

A President Le Pen confronting, a week after her swearing in, the three war maidens in Sicily might save the world from military conflict in such hot spots as Ukraine and Syria. Only in a world where political lines have been blurred by massive amounts of corporate money being introduced into politics could a standard bearer for a right-wing nationalist party like Le Pen actually advance the cause of peace. The old political score cards from the last century are no longer relevant. Today, a progressive would have to vote for a right-winger like Le Pen and even a Donald Trump in order that the G7 in 2017 does not come under the spell of three female war maidens intent on plunging the world into dangerous conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist, Madsen has over twenty years experience in security issues. 

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. Madsen has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club, Madsen is based and reports from Washington, D.C.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.