HILLARY CLINTON MUST BE INDICTED AND HERE’S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.
HILLARY CLINTON EXEMPLIFIES CORRUPT LEADERSHIP AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SUFFERS BECAUSE OF IT
Joseph smiled his tight and bitter smile. ‘What does any man, in his heart, really want? Power. Hypocrites scream ideologies and slogans to gain it over the gullible and what I like to call the “pure in hearts.” But my—friends—have no ideologies though they will solemnly use those of others if it serves them. They are men of many interests, politicians, merchant chiefs, mine owners, industrialists, bankers, railroaders, oilmen, shipbuilders and owners, munitions makers, men of inherited wealth, shipbuilders and owners, munitions makers, men of inherited wealth, men of illustrious family both here and abroad, princes, if you will. Landowners. They have several things in common: None is devoted to his particular country. None cares about the people’s welfare in any nation. All are avaricious, beyond the avarice of the general public to comprehend. All are sublime egotists. All are enemies of what you would call freedom. They want to rule, each in his own sphere, cooperating with the others. They want to be the Elite, with absolute authority over the lives and deaths and destinies of the world. At heart, they are all Robespierres, Dantons, Mirabeaus, Jacobins.” Excerpt from Captains And The Kings, (published 1972), by Taylor Caldwell, Chapter 31
One thing is clear and irrefutable. Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the United States. However you slice and dice it, a substantive F.B.I. investigation into Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State is sufficient reason to strike her name from consideration as a viable candidate for U.S. President. Failure of the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges is second to the import of the investigation itself and what the investigation uncovered. The mainstream media doesn’t even mention the impact a criminal investigation into the conduct a Cabinet level Official ought to warrant. Instead, the mainstream media focuses solely on the Director’s decision. The mainstream media has sought, in recent years, to distract the public, not to inform it. Why is that?
Moral failures galore exist here. Hillary Clinton should have had the good sense and decency to drop out of the race. She could and should have done so for the well-being of the Country and for the sake of the American People. She did not. That she failed to do so, the Democratic Party should have demanded she drop out of the race. The Party did not.
The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, should have followed his reason and recommended indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton on federal criminal charges. He did not. The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch should have indicted Hillary Clinton, regardless of the F.B.I.’s recommendation. She could have done so. She did not.
The sitting President of the United States, Barack Obama, should not be campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton—regardless of Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment—given the sheer volume of the evidence against her and its dire nature. Instead he campaigns on her behalf, standing at her side.
Bernie Sanders should have withheld his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He endorsed her anyway, to the chagrin of millions of Americans who placed faith in him.
THE DANGER POSED BY A CLINTON PRESIDENCY
Supporters of Hillary Clinton, including the present U.S. President, and, recently, U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders—along with Hillary Clinton’s retinue of image makers—portray Clinton as something she is not, never was, and, never could be—someone who cares about the well-being of this Nation; someone who would defend the Bill of Rights.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton portray her as one concerned over the plight of millions of illegal aliens. But these illegal aliens, having snuck across our borders, have no legitimate right to remain here. They portray Hillary Clinton as someone concerned over the plight of Americans—Americans who seek constant handouts from the Federal Government. Yet, her supporters ignore the tax burden those Americans place on millions of other Americans who take responsibility for their own actions, for their own lives. They portray Clinton as someone concerned over the plight of disaffected Islamists from the Middle East whom she would bring to this Country in droves. Yet they ignore the threat posed by radical Islam—a threat that isn’t lost on anyone here or abroad.
Hillary Clinton’s image makers portray Hillary Clinton as a Savior. She is nothing of the kind. Hillary Clinton feigns service to this Nation. She serves only herself and those seditious, treacherous interests that lurk in the shadows. She pretends to vouchsafe our rights and liberties. But she would destroy them. Freedom of speech would be curtailed. The right to keep and bear arms would be obliterated. Americans right to privacy would continue to be invaded, even as Clinton’s own actions would be cloaked in perpetual secrecy.
WHY HAS A LIKELY CRIMINAL EVADED A PROPER ACCOUNTING FOR HER ACTIONS?
People may speculate on Comey’s reluctance to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges. His failure to do so is sinful. His failure to do so has resulted in a cascade of sins committed by others.
Comey’s damning litany of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct as Secretary of State screams out for her indictment. James Comey’s arguments against recommendation—when juxtaposed with the evidence for indictment outlined in his July 5, 2016 public statement to the American people—are lame and paltry, perhaps deliberately so. Was Comey telling the American People, though obliquely, that both he, and the Bureau and, by extension, the entire Justice Department, have been compromised? Possibly.
WHAT MIGHT CONGRESS DO?
What can Congress do to right a grievous wrong? Over three decades ago, Congress enacted laws to appoint independent counsel—often referred to as ‘special prosecutors’—to lead investigations into the wrongdoing of officials at the highest levels of government.
The Arbalest Quarrel commenced a study of special prosecutorial appointment—the history behind it, the reasons for it, and the present status of it. The Arbalest Quarrel undertook this study to determine whether, through appointment of a special prosecutor, having independent authority, he or she might undertake a new investigation of Hillary Clinton’s bizarre conduct. This is necessary because of the Justice Department’s reluctance—for whatever reason—to “mete out justice.”
A special prosecutor would undertake a review of the F.B.I.’s files. A special prosecutor and his team would have complete access to those files. A special prosecutor and his team would be unbound by the conclusions reached and decisions made by the F.B.I. Director and by the Attorney General. A special prosecutor and his team would operate independently of and beyond the reach of any Executive Department Official, including that of the U.S. President.
A special prosecutor and his team would wield subpoena power and use of that subpoena power would be unconstrained. A special prosecutor would answer only to Congress.
Specifically, a special prosecutor and his team would undertake an independent investigation of Hillary Clinton’s dubious activities as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Both he and his team would investigate Clinton’s use of private email servers to conduct official Government business. Both he and his team would investigate foreign governments gaining access to that information. Both he and his team would review anew Hillary Clinton’s true motives behind her use of private email servers to conduct official Government business.
A special prosecutor and his team would attempt to answer several important—even imperative—questions. Did Hillary Clinton’s use of private emails servers bespeak an intent to hide her activities from the American public? If so, that demonstrates intent to mishandle classified Government information, negating James Comey’s conclusion that Hillary Clinton did not intend to mishandle classified Government information. Why did Hillary Clinton destroy official Government records? James Comey made plain she attempted to destroy Government information. That she did so also demonstrates intent. Did she do this to avoid having Government information, pertaining to her actions as Secretary of State, deposited in the National Archives? If so, why? Did she do this to avoid having her activities recorded for posterity? If so, why? Was she aware, perhaps, that her policy decisions were contrary to the well-being of our Nation and to its People? If so, that would explain why she sought to use private email servers—even at the risk that such servers could not be properly secured—giving hackers relatively easy access.
The special prosecutor and his team would review anew Hillary Clinton’s decision to lie to the F.B.I. and would string together the nature of those lies. The special prosecutor and his team would review anew the true purpose behind the Clinton Foundation.
Is the Clinton Foundation a “front?” From whom did the Clinton Foundation receive and accept tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars? Have some come from foreign governments and from wealthy, powerful individuals both at home and abroad? If so, have those governments and individuals paid the Clintons, through the Foundation, exorbitant monies to influence U.S. foreign and domestic policy? If so, has this influence peddling influenced foreign and domestic policy? Do the Clintons have sway over Obama? Have both Hillary and Bill Clinton attempted to cover up their Foundation’s activities from the American People?
Have foreign governments hacked into Hillary Clinton’s private email servers? If so, have foreign governments obtained insight into State Department and Executive Office foreign policy analyses and decisions.
Consider, did Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, enter the Mideast conflict, defending Bashar al-Assad’s regime, on the basis of information gleaned from Hillary Clinton’s private email servers? Were Hillary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States, would she commence use of private email servers again? If so, who in Government could stop her? Who, in Government would even know she was using private email servers to conduct Government business, at the highest level of Government?
Clearly, the activities of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government are suspect. Recent pronouncements from the mouth of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the Judicial Branch, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cast aspersions on that Branch too. Ginsburg’s assertions against a candidate for U.S. President are unprecedented and inappropriate. Both the tone of those assertions and the mere fact of them should give Americans pause.
On the basis of independent review of F.B.I. files and on the basis of new discovery, Congress may be in the position to answer many critical questions
Never in our history have we faced the prospect of a person gaining access to the highest Office in the Land under a cloud of suspected criminal activity. Sure, past U.S. Presidents and our present U.S. President have acted in ways that draw serious attention to the legitimacy of their actions. But, never have the American people suffered the possibility of a dubious character occupying the highest seat in the Land, before the fact. This is an outrage to every American voter. What can Congress do? In the past Congress relied on independent counsel, removed from the Executive Branch of Government and, therefore, beyond the influence of Government officials.
THE HISTORY OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS*
Using special prosecutors had its birth in the 1970s, during the “Watergate” era. The Office of the U.S. President had become increasingly powerful. Congress sought to check abuses of the President. Congress feared encroachment of an “Imperial Presidency” with immunities and powers that had grown excessive and unchecked. To place a measure of control on the Presidency, Congress enacted several laws to give Congress oversight over the Chief Executive. One of those and of great importance here is The Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This Act authorizes independent special prosecutors to investigate and prosecute crimes by high officials.”
The Department of Justice challenged this Act and other companion Acts when Congress first proposed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Through, the years, the Department of Justice has continued to challenge the Act.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 Act has had a tumultuous history. Bill Clinton’s Administration had originally supported the Act. But, when special prosecutors investigated five members of Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, pursuant to their authority under the Act, Clinton abandoned his support for it. So, once the Act came up for renewal, in 1999, the Act lapsed.
NO LEGAL MECHANISM EXISTS TODAY TO BRING TO JUSTICE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHEN THOSE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE–A DEPARTMENT THAT FALLS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT–IS EITHER UNWILLING TO ACT TO BRING THOSE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS TO JUSTICE BECAUSE THOSE HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO ACT BECAUSE HIGH LEVEL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY COMPROMISED.
Absent Congressional action, no legal mechanism exists today by which independent counsel, as special prosecutors, unconnected with the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, may investigate and prosecute corruption and felony crimes of those serving in the highest Offices of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide a framework for appointment of special prosecutors, and some legal experts question the constitutionality of their use.
But, then, if the Executive Branch, overseen by the United States President, has exclusive and unfettered control over the administration of law, and if Cabinet level Officials, appointed by the President, break the law, it behooves Congress to take action if the Executive Branch cannot or will not do so. More to the point, if Justice Department Officials alone may investigate and prosecute crimes of Officials in Government, what can Congress do if those same Justice Department Officials—the principal prosecutors of crime and corruption in Government—have themselves been compromised and cannot do their jobs effectively?
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO RIGHT A GRIEVOUS WRONG?
Since the Justice Department refuses to indict Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges—notwithstanding that evidence elicited by James Comey warrants indictment—indictment won’t proceed without Congressional action. Does Congress have the backbone to reauthorize The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 or enact another law like it?
The paramount question of Constitutional law is this: Can Congress enact a law, allowing the Legislative Branch, itself, to appoint a special prosecutor? Would that law pass Constitutional muster? In other words, can the Legislative Branch of our Government lawfully take upon itself the administering of law if the Executive Branch is unwilling to do so or incapable of doing so? Would not Congressional administrating of law conflict with the Separation of Powers doctrine? The Separation of Powers doctrine mandates that all executive functions of Government emanate and operate from and through the Executive Branch just as all legislative functions of Government emanate and operate through the Legislative Branch of Government. The administering of law is an Executive function, not a Legislative one.
The American People face a serious conundrum. How does this Nation deal with an Executive Branch run amok? The founders didn’t deal squarely with this question when they drafted our Constitution. They created no mechanism in the Constitution that allows for independent administrative review of Executive Department officials’ actions by Congress when Cabinet level Officials in the Executive Branch commit grievous wrongs, in contradistinction to their oath of Office.
The founders of our Nation evidently didn’t consider that corruption in the Executive Branch could be pervasive. The founders of our Nation evidently did not truly believe the American People could be duped into electing, to the highest Office in the Land, a person of questionable moral character, a person capable of treachery, a person who not only is willing and able to commit a felony but who, most likely, has done so.
We continue to explore these matters in forthcoming articles.
*The information provided in this section summarizes or paraphrases material obtained from the following two academic sources: “The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era,” 1945-2004, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 601, January 2005, Christopher S. Yoo, Associate Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University, Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University, and Anthony J. Colangelo, Associate, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP; and “The Constitutionality Of Independent Officers As Checks On Abuses Of Executive Power,” 16 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 45, Fall 1982, Donald J. Simon, Associate, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse & Guido, Washington, D.C.Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.