Earlier today, against my better judgement, I got into a
social media argument.
I know, like I said it was against my better judgement and I
should have just walked away, but I couldn't. Unfortunately it ended with
comments like: "I guess i'm that stupid" and "count me stupid
too."
Why does it seem that people enjoy making a flippant
comment, but when you point out how they are wrong they immediately take things
personally? I'm sorry that you are not plugged in to the issues and that you rely
on a corrupt media for your talking points.
For the record, yes, Hillary Clinton did have classified information, Top Secret & Above, in her unsecured emails. Information that was so sensitive that even members of Congress were kept from seeing / hearing about it. In fact, Congress was given redacted documents and had to issue a subpoena. Don't believe me,
listen to those in charge.
FBI Director James Comey
FBI Assistant Director Jason Herring
Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) Charles McCullough
NSA / NGIA / ODNI Hearing
The problem is that we have become so entrenched in our political party system that we have abdicated our responsibilities as citizens. We have put party over ethics, morality and convictions. It's the reason we are in the place we are today and we have no one to blame but ourselves..... oh, and those pesky little talking points as well !!
Today, two days before the
presidential election, the FBI Director released a follow-up statement that the
latest investigation, into Hillary Clinton’s emails, was being closed and that
they had found nothing. Not sure how exactly it took them months to digest tens
of thousands of emails, but they seemingly went through hundreds of thousands
in a mere eight days, but I will leave that up to you to digest.
If I included this story line in any
of my books, my readers would (rightfully) burn them in disgust, because I
had simply ‘jumped the shark’ and extend the plot line into the land of
outright implausibility. However, in 21st century politics we have
learned that nothing is apparently implausible.
I know a lot of people are having
problems with this whole Hillary Clinton / E-mail investigation. Most of the
loudest cries of ‘Hillary didn’t do
anything wrong’ come from folks who’s closest connection to actual law
enforcement comes from having watched old episodes of Law & Order while staying at a Holiday Inn Express.
Sorry, but your Facebook Police Academy Diploma does not
count in the real world. So, for the sake of aiding you, in this mind-numbing
process, I would be happy to lend my fifteen years of NYC investigatory
experience to the equation.
I thought I would make the facts
of this case abundantly clear to all of you via the new ‘millennial bumper sticker’
format.
In his testimony before Congress on July 7th,
2014, FBI Director James Comey testified that former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton did not turn over (thousands) of work related emails to the
State Department.
18 U.S. Code §
2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:
Subdivision (a) - Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes
and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other
thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United
States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
In his testimony
before Congress, FBI Director James Comey testified that former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton removed work related emails from the system.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:
Subdivision
(b) - Whoever, having the custody of
any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other
thing, willfully and unlawfully
conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the
same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both; and shall forfeit his office
and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As
used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by
any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
In
his statement on July 5th, 2016, FBI Director James Comey stated the
following regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her work
related emails from the system: “…there
is evidence that they were extremely
careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were
classified at the Top Secret/Special
Access Program level when they were sent and received.”
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense
information:
Subdivision (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.
NOTE: For the record, please note
that there is no culpable mental
state of INTENT anywhere in this passage.
Legal Definition
of : Gross Negligence:
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or
lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of
other people's rights to safety. It is more
than simple inadvertence, but it is just
shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to
take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to
actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence
is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of
punitive damages on top of general and special damages.
There you have it, Hillary
Clinton’s extremely careless behavior was the legal textbook definition of
Gross Negligence, with the exception that, after making the case, Director
Comey CHOSE not to use the exact words.
Understand that if you, or I, committed
any of the CRIMES outlined above, we would go to federal prison for a very long
time.
She has been cleared, not of
wrongdoing, but by a completely personal choice on the part of Director Comey not to pursue this matter, even though
it is not his choice to make.
Investigative agencies (in this
case the FBI) investigate and present their findings to prosecutorial agencies
(in this case the DOJ / Attorney General). It is the responsibility of the
prosecutor to determine whether they will proceed. However, in this case the AG, Loretta Lynch, took the unprecedented move of saying she would defer to the FBI, even though the case was still being investigated and she had just participated in a highly questionable meeting, with the subject of the investigation's husband, in a private plane for a social chat.
Hillary Clinton broke the law and
by very nature of the law she broke is disqualified from holding office, but
what the above tells you is that she
is above the law and that should send a chill down your spine.
Before my budding career as a mystery / thriller author, I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement, fifteen of those as an investigator with the NYPD, both as a detective and sergeant.
Since my books tend to have an overt political tone to them, I tend to follow the current events of the day pretty closely, so you can imagine that I was glued to my TV set this morning when FBI Director
James Comey appeared before the Congressional Oversight Committee to answer
questions pertaining to the Hillary Clinton investigation, specifically whether
information she provided to them during her voluntary
interview showed that she lied to Congress in her testimony, which was under
oath.
I will admit that I didn’t have
much hope going into this. My prior post about Congress
abdicating its Constitutional role shows just how bad things have gotten in
Washington, but this morning’s testimony highlights the true extent.
Now, let me remind you that this
hearing was about Hillary Clinton’s testimony before Congress and the
subsequent testimony she gave during the investigation by the FBI. The reason
for this was that when she testified before Congress it was under
oath.
So after opening questions by the
Committee Chairman, what does the ranking member, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi.) ask?
A question about the FBI
interview with Hillary? Nope.
Anything to do with the subject
of the current hearing? Nope.
No, Rep. Conyers thinks this is a
good time to address police shootings
and potential Russian connections for
Donald Trump.
See, this is exactly why people
have lost all faith in the political system. Congress, a co-equal branch of government, has
lost all credibility as it devolves deeper into the quagmire
of political party cheerleading.
Rep. Conyers, the senior member
of Congress, who has served since 1965,
has abandoned his duties as the representative of the people and has put his
party’s interests above the electorate. Let us be completely clear on this - There is certainly evidence that Hillary
Clinton perjured herself before congress.
Consider the following:
I have heard a lot of people, who
have never handled this type of material, make excuse after excuse about things
they know nothing about: Classification markings, retroactive classification,
whether there were markings, and I could go on forever. Understand one thing,
Hillary Clinton, the woman President Obama called the most qualified person ever,
was the Secretary of State. She knew, or should have known, whether the
information she dealt with was classified. Ignorance of the law is not a
defense and, repeat after me, you DO NOT need intent to commit the crime you
only have to do it.
It was not CIA Director, General
David Petraeus’, intent to jeopardize national security, but he was still charged
with providing classified information. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and accepted
a plea deal of probation along with a $100,000.00 fine. Understand that
Petraeus’ mistress, Paula Broadwell, was a journalist, a Lieutenant Colonel in
the US Army and an Intelligence Officer.
Broadwell had the security clearance to handle classified information,
but was not given authority to remove the information “from authorized storage facilities” or
store the classified information “in
unauthorized locations,” according to the affidavit. Unfortunately for
her, her case wasn’t as cut and dry as the General. She lost her security clearence,
was demoted back to major, and is still in a state of limbo.
I’m sorry, but does anyone think
that what happened with Hillary Clinton and her staff was in any way different?
There were people with access to her emails that had NO security clearance.
Why was Hillary’s attorney and
chief of staff Cheryl Mills, given immunity in order to obtain her laptop, when
the same accommodation was not afforded Paula Broadwell? Hell the FBI gave four other people immunity
and no
one was prosecuted. Obviously Petraeus and Broadwell didn’t know the right
people.
In my twenty-two year law enforcement
career I have never seen an investigation,
by what we are told is the Nation’s preeminent investigatory agency, which was
so flawed on so many levels. To be fair, I don’t blame the rank and file
agents, but I do lay the blame at the foot of the Director and Attorney General
Lynch, who I am sure issued the marching orders. However, that is a topic for another day.
The key issue today is the travesty
that passes itself off as the people’s representatives. I don’t care what party
you belong to; just understand that your elected officials are not doing the job you
elected them to do.
This morning, Rep. John Conyers
highlighted what is fundamentally wrong with our government.
Understand that I draw no distinction to
party, if you can cite an example where a Republican representative did the
same thing I will agree with you 100%. Each of us must look beyond party politics;
we must expect our representatives to seek the truth, not to protect a political
ally. The letter after a name must never come before the truth. The
Rule of Law must prevail, because when it does not then the Rule of Man does and
when that happens this Republic is doomed.
If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases,
then please like my Facebook page
and feel free to follow me on Twitter.
Many of you are aware that, in addition to being a retired NYPD sergeant, I am also a political junkie and this plays a big role in some of the books that I have written.
This morning, I watched something
that I found to be profoundly disturbing to me, as it should be to the
overwhelming majority of Americans.
Congressional Oversight Committee
Chairman, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, was questioning FBI Assistant Director
Jason Herring, regarding the production and distribution of materials, relative
to Congress’ investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. During the course of
his appearance, Agent Herring stated: “Director Comey tried to be as
transparent as he could with this committee.”
Stop for a moment and let that
sink in: “tried to be as transparent as he could..”
Folks, that should send a chill
through you. If it doesn’t, then the problem is greater than you could imagine.
How have we arrived to the point
where an arm of the government, specifically a federally law enforcement agency,
decides to become its own arbiter of what it will and will not provide to
congress?
I cannot begin to warn you of the
seriousness of this and the dire implications for our country going forward.
As many of you know, in the past
I have railed against the ‘party’ system as I believe that this political arrangement
is more of a detriment to us, driving a wedge of dissension between Americans.
I believe that we have a solemn responsibility to elect principled leaders, as
it is the only way our system works. But with each passing day I have come to realize
that the majority of Americans do not have a clue as to exactly how this system
of government works.
First, please understand that we
do not live in a democracy. I keep hearing people say that and I cringe. There
is a significant reason that the United States is not a democracy, best summed
up by founding father and future president, James Madison:
“Hence it is that democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short
in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths …” – Federalist
Papers, #10.
The truth is that democracy is
actually the antithesis of our government. In a democracy the majority can
decide to simply vote away things they don’t agree with, including your rights.
Ever hear the argument about common sense? Well, in a democracy, the majority
can take away any right by virtue of common sense….. you know, for the common
good. Sadly, many do not consider the implications of this. You might be part
of the in-crowd today, enjoying your moment in the sun, but remember that
tomorrow the political winds can shift and you may very well find yourself
looking down the barrel of the gun you helped create. We only have to look back
70 or so years at the rise and fall of Nazi Germany.
So the founding fathers took the
extraordinary path of creating the world’s first constitutional republic. It
established a constitution as the guiding principles, recognizing certain unalienable
rights to the citizens of this nation, and created a framework of co-equal
government that would insure these rights were not infringed upon.
The new government was founded
upon three co-equal branches: Executive, a bicameral Legislative (House of
Representatives and Senate) and Judicial. Without getting into the minutia, because
you should already know this, each has its own separate powers and was thought
to be the best system for insuring that one branch didn’t accumulate too much
power and attempt to exceed its granted authority.
Got that? This system was
designed to prevent one branch from gaining too
much power.
Checks and balances is what it is
called and a good example of this is that the legislative (Congress) has the
power to create laws. The executive (President) can veto any legislation, an
act which can be overridden by Congress, with sufficient votes. The
President nominates judges to the nation's highest judicial authority (Supreme
Court), but nominees must be approved by Congress. The judicial then has the
power to invalidate, as ‘unconstitutional,’ any law passed. The Congress also
has the power of the purse, the
ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. So if the
President does attempt an end-run to establish something the Congress does not
approve of, he won’t have the funding to do so.
This works well, at least in theory.
When George Washington was first
elected president in 1789 there were no political parties. This would soon
change with the Federalist Party in 1791 and, in the following year, the
formation of the Anti-Federalist Party or Democratic-Republicans. By his 2nd
term, party lines and loyalty in the Nation’s capital were drawn to the point
of bitterness and destruction. Personal and professional attacks became common
and they represented a serious threat to the new republic. Washington was
greatly concerned that the parties had sought to, and would again; seek more power
for themselves, using it to exact political revenge on their opponents.
Something he called the ‘alternate domination.’ When reading Washington’s Farewell
Address, it does not take much to see just how remarkably prophetic his
words were:
“The disorders and miseries which
result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute
power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some
prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns
this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public
liberty.”
Does any of this sound familiar?
Just as Washington predicted, two
hundred plus years ago, we are seeing the elevation of man, and party, over the
principled and faithful execution of law.
Party in-fighting, within the hallowed
halls of Congress, has diminished that body to nothing more than a cheerleader
for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A fact eloquently outlined in the accompanying statement by Rep. Trey Gowdy. And the judicial is not
very far behind, becoming more of an activist
judiciary instead of one that uses the Constitution as their guide.
But in the case of Congress, rather
than perform the role they were elected to do, by you, they are actually doing
the will of the party. This has to resonate with the electorate. If not, then
we are truly doomed.
Whatever your political
affiliation is, the current investigation into, Democratic Party nominee,
Hillary Clinton’s email servers has to be taken seriously. I spent most of my
career conducting criminal investigations. Unlike politicians and pundits who
try and couch their words, I can tell you unequivocally that crimes were
committed. Whether a decision was made to not prosecute for those crimes is not
the issue. Congress has, and should act upon, the authority to investigate this
matter, but as we see in the video above, forces are at play to impede it. An
agent of the executive branch, in this case the FBI, should not be allowed to
decide what they will or will not
share with the legislative branch tasked with oversight. That is chilling.
It is something that is even
occurring within lower federal courts where agencies are refusing to turn over
documents to the court.
How did we get to this place?
What happened to the rule of law and not man? Will the foundation that is being
laid now slowly trickle down to the rest of society? What will happen when
society chooses to fail to comply with a court order? Will the judge wring his
hands and bemoan his impotence to do anything? I don’t think so.
I truly believe that something
has to change in this country.
The government of the United States
represents the citizens or as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it: "Government of the people, by the
people, for the people…” We are their bosses and yet somehow we have abdicated
all control to the powers that be.
To be fair, they are not
completely at fault. We, the people, have become co-equal cheerleaders.
Lamenting when someone from the other
side does something wrong, yet turning a blind eye when it is our person. We simply cannot have
different rules for us and them.
If this continues down the path
it is going, we will not survive.
Congress has to stop ‘protecting’
people, because they belong to the same party, and start doing what their
bosses, the people, elected them to do. For our part, we have to be honest with
ourselves and understand that just because someone might have the same party
affiliation as us, doesn’t mean they are the best person for the job.
Unlike the vast majority of folks
reading this, I handled classified information at one time. Folks, this isn’t
an insignificant issue and it certainly isn’t a political one. Understand that
people have lost careers and have even gone to prison for far less than what
Hillary Clinton did, yet we are being told: ‘nothing here, move along.’ If it
were you or I, our lives would be ruined and our freedoms taken away. Don’t you
have a problem with that? Why is it, that by virtue of her place, in some type
of American political lineage, she is getting a free pass on something you or I
would spend a long time in prison for? Doesn’t this bother you at a fundamental
level?
Elections are about the
accumulation of power, not for you or me, but for the party. It is the reason
that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the two major party candidates for president
in 2012, spent close to $1.12 billion, a number which, by all estimates, will probably
be exceeded in this election cycle. All that money for a job that pays a paltry
annual salary of $500,000.00, give or take. Let that sink in for a moment. At
best, the next president, if they are in for two-terms (eight years), will have
earned about 4-5 million dollars. Hillary and Bill Clinton brought in five
times that total amount during one year of speaking engagements.
You still think this isn’t about
power?
It is time that you and I stand
up and demand that our representatives in Washington, D.C. start to do the job
they were elected to do, instead of abdicating it in favor of those with power.
If we don’t, then we have no one else to blame when the government comes
crashing down on top of us.
If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases,
then please like my Facebook page
and feel free to follow me on Twitter.
