From Paul E. Vallely, Stand Up America
Editor’s Note – The operative phrase the Clinton sycophants are using in response to Schweizer’s book is typified by Lannie Davis: “there’s no evidence that President Clinton, that I’ve seen yet, tried to influence any decision by any governmental agency,” otherwise referring to his own wife.
This of course is a distinct non-denial, and is what tells us that the Clintons have much to hide, ‘but you ain’t gonna get anything’. Clinton told us she was not going to give that server up, but if Boehner lives up to his recent comments, a Congressional subpoena will make them.
Additionally, Hillary Clinton is “not protected by the fact that her husband may have taken money … spouses’ interests are attributed to each other and that is no excuse or defense.” Its not just the foundation getting donations, it’s also the direct fees that makes it personal as well.
Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?
In 18 U.S.C. 201, the law talks about direct or indirect action. Therefore, Davis and his ilk are misleading America for political purposes as usual. Now the real legal minds are getting serious, and soon Clinton will have to address it and the Benghazi Committee directly as well – should be a great show!
…whoever…directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity…
Maybe we will get another “what difference, at this point, does it make” type of statement when she has to testify in an open hearing or two for Trey Gowdy. Remember, just like in accounting, you are not legally allowed to commingle funds with your own personal funds, the same is true for official emails, they cannot be commingled.
Their use of a commingled server is an awful good and convenient way to hide things as personal, would you not agree. Remember Hillary’s convenient use of the word ‘convenient’?
One last point, and then please read the article below. Is it not a bit frightening that Vladimir Putin controls 20% of the United States uranium deposits? That alone makes Bill’s $500,000 speech in Moscow even more unseemly to say the least.
Veteran defense lawyers see possible criminal inquiry for Clintons
With a sitting Democratic senator recently indicted on federal bribery and corruption charges, top criminal defense lawyers in the nation’s capital say Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton could conceivably face similar scrutiny, amid mounting disclosures about the tangled finances of her family’s philanthropic foundation.
The new book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, an investigative reporter affiliated with the right-leaning Hoover Institution, has unleashed a torrent of conflict-of-interest allegations relating to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s own conduct during her tenure, from 2009 to 2013, as secretary of state.
Particular scrutiny – by Fox News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times – has focused on why the State Department, under Clinton’s leadership, green-lighted a foreign transaction that enriched major donors to the foundation while placing an estimated 20 percent of America’s stockpile of uranium – the fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons -under the control of a Kremlin-backed Russian firm.
It was, moreover, shortly after the uranium deal went through that former President Bill Clinton nailed down a $500,000 fee for a speaking event in Moscow.
“There’s certainly smoke there,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLC, who has long experience handling financial and public integrity cases. “The question’s going to be whether or not she took any official action in exchange for those donations. If she did, I think there is going to be a high, high likelihood of additional scrutiny, either from Capitol Hill or from the Department of Justice itself.”
“If the facts suggest that there was a linkage between what Secretary Clinton did in her official capacity and the money that was coming into the Clinton Foundation,” Burns said, “this would fall under 18 U.S.C. 201 as a potential bribery violation.”
That statute provides that a bribe has occurred, among other circumstances, whenever “a public official directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official.”