PAY TO PLAY: THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S OPEN SECRET AND SILENT PURPOSE

Bribery At Its Worst: Selling Out America For Cold, Hard Cash

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, . . . whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or accidental condition of circumstance.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Writings: Notes on the State of Virginia/Public & Private PapersGive the Clintons one dollar, and they will send you on your way. Give the Clintons one thousand dollars, and they will deign to give you their ear. Give the Clintons one million dollars, and they will bend American policy to your advantage. Give the Clintons ten million dollars, and they will give you the keys to our Nation, laughingly sending our Nation, its People, the sacred Constitution of our Nation, and the sacred rights and liberties of the American People—all to the dark abyss of hell. ~Personal Reflections on the Clinton Dynasty by the Arbalest Quarrel.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF RECENT ARBALEST QUARREL ARTICLES ON THE CLINTON SCANDAL

American citizens who believe in the sanctity of and who work diligently to preserve and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms believe in the inviolability of the United States Constitution. Even citizens who fail to appreciate the Second Amendment and who seek to upend it are reluctant to relinquish the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and prepared to redraft a new one. Through her actions we know Hillary Rodham Clinton scoffs at the import and purport of the Second Amendment, belittles those who support it, and has little, if any regard, for the rest of the Constitution. She believes, wrongly, that our system of laws, grounded in our Constitution, and comprising a massive body of case law, statute, and jurisprudence do not apply to her.Under her watch as an employee of the federal Government, in her capacity as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position in the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton mishandled classified Government information. That is fact. There is no longer any reasonable doubt about it.What does the mishandling of classified information mean? It means that legal grounds exist for charging Hillary Clinton with a felony. It means that legal grounds exist for indicting Hillary Clinton on multiple counts of violating federal law, namely and particularly, 18 U.S.C. § 793. That Statute falls within Chapter 37.Chapter 37 is titled, “Espionage and Censorship.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 is titled, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) and (g) reads, “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 his 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.”Mishandling of classified information cannot be excused or cavalierly dismissed on the ground of poor judgment or innocent mistake. Hillary Clinton’s actions were calculated and callous. Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds, scrupulously catalogued by the F.B.I.—laid out in clear, cogent, and horrific detail by James B. Comey, Director of the F.B.I., in an unprecedented statement to the American people, delivered over the airwaves, on July 5, 2016, one day after the date of our Independence from tyranny—unquestionably supports Hillary Rodham Clinton’s indictment under specific federal law. Hillary Clinton compounded her misdeeds by lying about them. Lying to federal officials support Hillary Clinton’s indictment under another federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 of Chapter 37.

A THIRD FEDERAL CRIME—AND ANOTHER FELONY—THAT BOTH BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON MUST ANSWER FOR: BRIBERY

Lost, though, in the moment of the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal and her intentional cover-up of her scandalous outrageous mishandling of classified data is discussion of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation scandal. The public knows precious little about the relationship between the State Department’s foreign policy decisions and monies flowing into the Foundation. But news is trickling out. The American public has the right to know about the relationship between the State Department’s foreign policy decisions and monies flowing into the Clinton Foundation. The American public should not and must not be kept in the dark. It is patently clear that any seemingly altruistic activities of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation are merely “a front,” “a mask,” for the sale of political favors to those willing and able to pay for such favorable treatment. The Department of Justice is silent about this. Why?The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation isn’t simply a vehicle for the performance of altruistic activities, as the Clintons claim publically. The Foundation masks seedy, nefarious, illegal activities, undermining the sovereignty of our Nation and the sanctity of our Constitution, all the while contributing to the Clintons’ accumulation of personal wealth, on a massive scale. The Clintons would deny this, of course. On the Foundation’s website, the Clintons provide only this one innocuous remark, concerning the purpose of their Foundation:“We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.” Stated purpose of the Clinton Foundation as set forth on its website. Stated purpose and goal of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Pay particular attention to the first sentence of the Clinton Foundation’s stated purpose. The Clintons claim their Foundation “convenes” businesses, Governments, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), and individuals for altruistic purposes. But, do these businesses include international holding companies and multinational corporations? Do these Governments include Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others? Do these individuals include foreign nationals and wealthy, powerful oligarchs? Are these NGOs “authentic” NGOs? If so, they are tied to the United Nations. That alone should give Americans pause.

DID HILLARY CLINTON USE PRIVATE EMAIL SERVERS TO COVER HER TRACKS? OBVIOUSLY, SO!

The Clintons—Bill and Hillary—do not like to discuss the businesses, governments, individuals and NGOs who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their Foundation’s coffers. But the American people have the right to know and, indeed, the duty to investigate the motives of these multinational businesses, these foreign governments, these billionaires and power brokers, and these NGOs. What are their desires, wishes, and goals for flooding the Clinton Foundation, collectively, with hundreds of millions of dollars? Might not their motives transcend mere altruistic concerns? Is that not a rational inference to draw? Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton help formulate U.S. foreign policy on the basis of monies paid to the Foundation—irrespective of how that policy might impact the well-being and security of our Nation and our People? Is that not the one billion dollar question?Did not these multinational corporations, these foreign governments, these billionaires, these UN sponsored NGOs knowingly purchase the U.S. Government policy they wanted through monies paid to the Clinton Foundation? If so, those payments amount to bribes paid to the Clintons through their Foundation. The Clinton Foundation is, then, essentially a conduit, a front for illegal payments to the Clintons—a vehicle for doling out favors—in unlawful defiance of our Nation’s laws—but favors the Clintons are in a position to deliver because of their influence and power and ability to warp and bend government policy as they wish—favors the Clintons are unabashedly willing to deliver to those ready and able and willing to pay handsomely for it.Let’s take a look.

COLLUSION BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE BILL, HILLARY & CHELSEA FOUNDATION

The New York Times reported, in 2015, in a story captioned, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” “how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”The Times article goes on to say, “But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The New York Times categorically states that Hillary Rodham Clinton used her Department for personal gain. Worse yet, both of the Clintons—Bill and Hillary—allowed their lust for personal wealth to override their duty to protect and defend our Country. Russia is our adversary. Clintons’ supporters and cronies assert that Donald Trump threatens our national security. Yet, here the Clintons sit actually selling out our Country for personal gain. Whatever speculations Hillary Clinton’s supporters may cast upon Donald Trump, Americans need not resort to speculation to know that Bill Clinton, a past United States President, and Hillary Clinton, a past Secretary of State and U.S. Senator who seeks to become the 45^th President of the United States, do not, never have, and never will have our Nation’s best interests at heart. Their duty to Country will never outweigh their greed, and their lust for power and personal aggrandizement.As reported by the weblog, Politifact, the Clinton Foundation also received large sums of money from Middle Eastern Countries, namely, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, and Yemen. Receipt of monies from Yemen is particularly troubling, since terrorist groups are extremely active in that Country. The U.S. has conducted Drone strikes regularly in that Country, as reported in that same Politifact article.The Daily Caller reports that the Clinton Foundation took in nearly one hundred million dollars from other autocratic Middle Eastern Countries.Fox News Reports that the Clinton Foundation has taken in millions of dollars from Countries that imprison homosexuals. Curiously, Rights Groups, who fervently support the rights of homosexuals and transgender individuals, are notably “silent” about that fact. Why is that? Does that not illustrate hypocrisy?These incidents, of course, are just the tip of the ice-berg. But the gravity of the few incidents mentioned here explains Hillary Clinton’s true reason—the “true true” and “the whole true” for using private email servers. We know now that Clinton deliberately risked the hacking of her personal servers. Her use of private, personal email servers was intentional. She didn’t utilize private, personal email servers to conduct high level federal Government business—servers maintained in her home—as a matter of simple convenience. That rationale, as Hillary Clinton expressly conveyed to the public, is a hopelessly transparent ruse. We can dismiss that ridiculous notion out-of-hand.The American public can reasonably conclude that Hillary Clinton used private, personal email servers, instead of official Government servers to conduct federal Government business, precisely because she found it necessary to cover her tracks. She did so to preclude documentation of the Clinton Foundation’s illegal activities, for posterity, in the National Archives. She did so, as well, to make investigation of the illegal conduct involving the Clinton Foundation, difficult.But, if Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, manufactured foreign and domestic policies for the benefit of others, for personal pecuniary gain—channeling those proceeds through the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation—she committed a federal crime—a felony—beyond the two felonies the public knows about which include: the mishandling of classified Government material, 18 U.S.C. § 793, and lying to a federal official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The third federal crime, another felony, is that of bribery. The federal crime of bribery is set down in 18 U.S.C. § 201, titled, "Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses." The federal crime of Bribery says:

“For the purpose of this section—

the term ‘public official’ means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

the term ‘person who has been selected to be a public official’ means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.

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, with intent—

to influence any official act; or

to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

being influenced in his the performance of any official act;

being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Whoever—

otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, 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 or person;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”

During the eight and one-half hour Hearing of the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C., U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican, Utah, pointedly asked the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and whether that investigation was “tied” to Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email servers to conduct official Government business. Comey was, on that score, curiously reticent about answering. In fact, he was tight-lipped. CHAFFETZ: Did you look at the Clinton Foundation? COMEY: I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.CHAFFETZ: Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?COMEY: I'm not going to answer that.That little exchange, concerning the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, is the extent of Congressional inquiry into and the extent of James Comey's responses to Congressman Jason Chaffetz's questioning of the Foundation investigation tie-in to the Hillary Rodham Clinton private email server investigation--conducted by the F.B.I.--in eight and one-half hours of Hearing. Strange! Yet, the American public has a right to know if the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is in bed with multinational businesses, with foreign Governments, with UN affiliated NGOs, and with wealthy, powerful individuals.The simple suggestion that a foundation—any foundation—attracting the influential individuals and entities the Clinton Foundation does, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, does so because such individuals and entities simply have altruistic concerns and wish for the foundation, to spend the monies received accordingly, does precious little, in itself, to inspire confidence. Rather, and specifically, the machinations of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation inspires incredulity, at least, or otherwise simply defies rational belief.The Clinton Foundation does more—much more. The Clinton Foundation conducts business with major players around the world and generates tens and hundreds of millions of dollars because these players seek to influence foreign and domestic policies that benefit them. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton wield influence within the highest levels of the U.S. Government. They know the Clintons can deliver! Selling out our Country for personal gain is the Clinton’s raison d’etre. The power brokers know this. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton can be bought. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been bought in the past, and in the present. They know that U.S. President Hillary Clinton would be willing to sell out our Country, in the future. If Hillary and Bill Clinton have manipulated the direction of this Country to benefit foreign interests and sponsors, to the detriment of U.S. interests and to the detriment of the well-being of the Nation’s citizenry, we must also consider the possibility that the Clintons have committed the most serious crime imaginable—treason.We will, in the next Arbalest Quarrel article, explore the legal grounds for indicting the two on charges of treason—the most heinous crime any American citizen can commit. The F.B.I. Director’s reticence in discussing the machinations of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation may bespeak the worst possible horror for this Nation: that the Clintons and their Foundation is not accountable to or beholding to U.S. law and that the Clinton’s Foundation, backed by their foreign donors, is more powerful than the U.S. Government!Most disheartening and disconcerting is the fact that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation still exists. So, in the event Hillary Rodham Clinton secures the Office of United States President, she will be in the position to use, and will undoubtedly use, and leverage the Office of U.S. President to accumulate, unto the Clinton family, ever large masses of cash. That is bad enough. Worse, Bill and Hillary Clinton will be able to formulate, will have the desire to formulate, and will in fact formulate and implement American domestic and foreign policy to benefit their donors. That policy—sold to the American People—will actually benefit those foreign and domestic actors who remit tens of millions of dollars to the Clintons, through their Foundation. Those donors will expect and will receive favorable treatment—treatment that may and, in many instances, will be detrimental—perhaps severely detrimental—to the well-being of our Nation and to the well-being of our Nation’s citizenry, in contravention to our Nation’s Constitution and to its laws.What can Congress do to prevent the travesty of a Bill and Hillary Dyarchy in this country?

CONGRESS MUST ENACT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2016 AND MUST DO SO, NOW!

Since the Department of Justice will not perform its duties under the U.S. Constitution, Congress must act to demand integrity of the Executive Branch. A bill is pending before Congress to require integrity of Government: the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. The bill would reenact the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Two House Republicans, Representative, Rick Allen, Republican from Georgia, and Michael Turner, Republican from Ohio, jointly introduced the new Act of 2016.Where is that bill now? Has the House acted on it? Does it intend to act on it before the General Election in November 2016? Why hasn’t the public heard about it? Are House Republicans stonewalling? If so, why?Enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016 is the best impetus for investigating the serious misconduct of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and the mysterious, likely illegal conduct of both Bill and Hillary Clinton through their “front,” the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.Failure of House Republicans to act on the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, and failure of Senate Republicans to coordinate efforts with the two U.S. Congressman who sponsored this bill, says much of the reluctance of centrist Republicans to mete out justice for Hillary Clinton. Failure to act on the bill, languishing in committee since May 2016, suggests that many Republicans do not take the corruption emanating from and permeating everything the Clinton dynasty does, seriously. We can only surmise that many Republicans in Congress secretly—and some, not so secretly—desire Hillary Clinton to win the U.S. Presidency. We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, do not. We, along with all Americans, who cherish the sanctity and inviolability of our Nation’s Constitution—which has stood the test of time—and who countenance the continued sovereignty of our Nation and of our system of laws, cannot allow this to happen, must not allow this to happen.The Arbalest Quarrel will continue to delve into the criminal conduct of the Clintons in upcoming articles.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

8/10/16 8/10/16

LITTLE WHITE LIES, BIG DAMNABLE LIES, AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON “TRUTHS”

“I am a liar, and that’s the truth” said the inhabitant of Crete. Was the Cretan’s assertion a lie or was he telling the truth? ~Epimenides’ Paradox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~After almost eight months of avoiding a formal Press Conference, Hillary Clinton's handlers decided to loosen Clinton's leash a bit. She spouts this drivel in response to a specific question concerning her position that the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, said Clinton's responses to F.B.I. questions, posed to her during her interview, were truthful:"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify." Hillary Rodham’s statement in response to a journalist a gathering of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington, D.C., Clinton, on August 6, as reported by CNN.There’s no “bottom line” here—just a bottomless pit, a black hole: a deep, dark abyss constructed on lie upon lie, upon lie, upon lie. Hillary Clinton asserts Director Comey said her answers “were truthful.” That declaration is itself a lie, for that declaration contradicts Director Comey’s testimony before the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C. The Hearing took place two days after the FBI Director delivered an unprecedented statement to the American people, laying out, in clear, cogent, damning detail the nature of and extent of Clinton’s crimes.Congressman Trey Gowdy, Republican, South Carolina, pointedly asked Director Comey whether Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI during the FBI’s interview of Clinton. He said she did. A portion of that exchange is here:“GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true? COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent — GOWDY: So it was not true? COMEY: That’s what I said. GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was not marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received, was that true? COMEY: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said ‘I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.’ Was that true? COMEY: There was classified material e-mail. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true? COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of State. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the State Department. Was that true? COMEY: No. We found work-related e-mails, thousands that were not returned.”The entire eight and one-half hour hearing is available to the public.News groups make much of Hillary Clinton’s use of the expression, “short-circuited,” in her response to a journalist at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. The news groups were right to do so, for the expression means nothing. Clinton’s handlers came up with it as a useful and deceitful dodge.At the news conference, Hillary Clinton says “she will try to clarify.” Yet she clarified nothing. She never does. She never will. She leaves her listeners ever more puzzled, confused. She lies and obfuscates and keeps diligently to her script, meticulously prepared for her by her speech writers. She tries to sound contrite. She can’t because contrition isn’t in her character.Americans should place more stock in another term Clinton employed at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. It is a neutral, matter-of-fact word, but one requiring a close look. For it says much of the insidious design to protect Clinton from exposure to legal action. The term is ‘interview.’Now, Clinton did truthfully refer to her meeting with FBI agents as an ‘interview.’ The FBI conducted an interview of Clinton, not a deposition. What’s the difference? The term, ‘deposition,’ is a legal term of art. The term, ‘interview,’ though, has many shades of meaning, colloquial as well as legal.Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘deposition’ as ‘a witness’s out-of-court testimony that is reduced to writing (usually by a court reporter) for later use in court or for discovery purposes.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘testimony,’ as ‘Evidence that a competent witness under oath or affirmation gives at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.’ The word, ‘interview,’ is not defined in Black’s Law Dictionary except in reference to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office form which has no application here. But the distinction between an interview and a deposition has particular import apropos of the Clinton matter.The FBI didn’t record Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questions, and Clinton didn’t formally swear, under oath, that her responses were truthful. This means the FBI didn’t formally depose Hillary Clinton. So her assertions cannot be used at trial.Why didn’t the FBI formally depose Clinton? Certainly, the enormity of the allegations against her would seem to demand that. Why did Hillary Clinton create a personal email server system? Didn’t she appreciate the risks in doing so? Couldn’t she appreciate the risks? What does her creation of a personal email system, leading to the mishandling of secret Government information say about her judgment as a high level Government official? Again, we ask: why didn’t FBI agents formally depose or, at least, electronically record Hillary Clinton’s responses to their questions?Curiously, there is precedent for refraining from recording an interview. Both State and federal law enforcement officers had traditionally opposed recording of interviews of criminal suspects. Of course, if interviews aren’t recorded, in some manner, and if the interviewee's declarations are not under oath or affirmation, they have little if any evidentiary use in Court proceedings. But, perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with the recording of interviews. Perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with formal depositions. Let’s look at the history behind this approach to dispense with formal depositions in these matters.Prior to 2003, only two States required their law enforcement officers to electronically record interviews and, until recently, federal Departments, including the Department of Justice resisted recording interviews. However, “[s]ince 2003, the number of states requiring law enforcement officers to electronically record some or all interviews conducted with suspects in their custody has grown from two to at least twenty-two. Until recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has resisted this trend; under its previous policy, the DOJ's three chief investigative agencies -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) -- rarely recorded custodial interviews. However, on May 22, 2014, the DOJ announced a substantial change in its policy, creating a presumption that FBI, DEA, ATF, and United States Marshals Service (USMS) agents will electronically record custodial interviews.” Recent Administrative Policy: Criminal Procedure -- Custodial Interviews -- Department Of Justice Institutes Presumption That Agents Will Electronically Record Custodial Interviews, Dep't Of Justice, New Department Policy Concerning Electronic Recording Of Statements (2014)., 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1552 (March 10, 2015).The Department of Justice’s new policy, adopted in 2014, concerning recording custodial interviews changed. At the time of adoption of the new policy, Eric Holder was the Attorney General, appointed by President Barack Obama.Actually, the new policy was a welcome change. For, [t]he DOJ's new policy, which went into effect on July 11, 2014, flips its previous presumption against recording to one in favor of it. Agents no longer need to obtain supervisory approval to record interviews: FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS agents are now expected to electronically record statements of individuals suspected of any federal crime in their custody when in a 'place of detention with suitable recording equipment.'" Id. Why did the DOJ change its stance concerning recording custodial interviews?“Before the recent shift, the DOJ's position was that custodial interviews generally should not be recorded. The major federal law enforcement agencies strongly resisted recording interrogations, citing fears that recording would interfere with rapport building, lay juries and judges would misinterpret acceptable interviewing techniques as improper, and the implementation would be logistically difficult. These concerns led agencies to erect barriers to electronic recording and to rely instead on note-taking and agent memory. For example, the FBI's standard procedure was for an agent to take notes during the interview and later compile a summary known as a Form 302. The Agency had an exception to this practice that allowed recording if the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) ‘deem[ed] it advisable.’ In all but the three largest FBI field offices, there is one SAC who runs the entire office. Therefore, although the FBI claimed that its policy allowed ‘flexibility’ in deciding when to record interviews, internal DOJ analysis suggests that the policy actually inhibited agents' ability to exercise discretion regarding whether or not to record their own interviews, and created a ‘heavy presumption’ against recording. Recent developments, however, expose the shortcomings of the DOJ's previous policy. After decades of experience on the state level with recording policies, many of the FBI's concerns about recording interviews have been proven false. . . . And even where the concerns may prove well-founded, exceptions to recording requirements can easily address the problem; for instance, an exception could be granted for technological difficulties.” Id.Note: the policy for recording of interviews refers to those individuals in custody. But, the FBI never held Clinton in federal custody. So the DOJ’s new policy, favoring recording interviews, doesn’t directly apply here. Still, one might ask why—given the severity of Clinton’s conduct and the damage she inflicted on the security of this Nation and its people—the FBI didn’t take Clinton into custody?Regardless, nothing suggests the FBI SAC Officer couldn’t electronically record Clinton’s responses even if the FBI had not detained her. Still,“. . . the agent and prosecutor may decide not to record an interview conducted for the purpose of gathering information related to public safety or national security.” Id. It’s the SAC Officer’s call. But, given the seriousness of Clinton’s mishandling of the nation’s secrets—a felony—one would think sufficient reason existed for electronic recording of Clinton’s responses; and one can, therefore, certainly make the rational counter argument that it is precisely because Clinton’s transgressions rose to the level of national security concerns that the FBI SAC Officer should have recorded Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questioning for eventual use as evidence in a court proceeding against Clinton if the DOJ ultimately brought charges against her. Certainly, Congress would wish to review the transcript. Indeed, at the August 6, 2015 hearing, Congress pointed out its desire to obtain the SAC Officer’s Form 302 summary of the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton. Whether the FBI ultimately does so, that is an open question. Indeed, that is a transcendental question relating to Government’s attempt to hide nefarious, probably illegal actions from the American people.But, formal electronic transcript or no, one incontrovertible fact remains, Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a federal crime—a serious federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.18 U.S.C. § 1001, sets forth:“Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . . imprisoned not more than 8 years . . . or both.”Of note, a person need not have perjured him or herself—that is to say, a person need not have testified falsely, under oath—to have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001. When a person lies to a federal official—whether under oath or not—that person has violated federal law. Director Comey has acknowledged as much.Hillary Clinton cannot claim an excuse to lie or a license to lie to the FBI simply because she did not formally swear to tell the truth. And, her claim to have told the truth, when facts prove otherwise, do not elevate her lies to truth simply because they were uttered out of the mouth of one, in her view at least, of esteemed status, beyond the rule of law that applies to us lesser mortal citizens of the United States.Courts of law, in time past, have taken a very dim view of liars, whether their lies were produced under oath or not. The courts have denied citizenship to individuals who lied to naturalization officials. See, Petition of Ledo, 67 F. Supp. 917 (D.C. RI 1946). The Court denied citizenship to a liar, noting that, under the naturalization Statute, only a person of good moral character, who accepts the principles of our Constitution and is not predisposed to harm our Country is welcome to become a citizen. The Court held that a liar is not a person of good moral character. That is ground to deny a person his or he petition for citizenship.8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) provides: 'No person, except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years and within the State in which the petitioner resided at the time of filing the petition for at least six months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the petition up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.'8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) is now covered by 8 USCS § 1427(a) through (c). Of note, the language, especially, pertaining to moral character remains, in the present statute, exactly as written in the older Statute.See, In re Spenser, 22 F. Cas. 921, 5 Sawy 195 (1895). The Circuit Court of Oregon pointed out that perjury is not only malum prohibitum [an act that is a crime merely because prohibited by statute] but malum in se [an act that is inherently immoral, like arson or murder] that wherever it affected the administration of justice, by introducing falsehood and fraud therein, it was at common law deemed infamous, and the person committing it held incompetent as a witness and unworthy of credit.How far we have come. A court of law may forbid citizenship to a person who lies to a federal officer on the ground our Country does not deem such a person worthy of our Country’s grace, for that person is, both by law and by nature, an immoral person. Yet, this Country now raises the specter of nominating, to the highest Office in the Land, an incorrigible liar—a person who lied to FBI. She then unabashedly compounds the lies told to the FBI by telling the American people she never lied to the FBI.We have in Hillary Rodham Clinton a person capable of turning veritable lies into inviolate truths and, when pressed, will claim she simply made a “mistake.” Those “mistakes” translate into devastation and horror. Those “mistakes” have weakened this Country and its system of laws, led directly or indirectly to the deaths of thousands of Americans, allowed for the rise and strengthening of numerous radical Islamic groups, created political instability throughout the world, promoted civil unrest, but created hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clintons as they have placed, and will undoubtedly continue to place, our Country’s assets, its traditions, its values, its very Constitution and Sovereignty—all of it—on the auction block. Nothing is sacred or “off the table” for Bill and Hillary Clinton where their insatiable greed, lust for power, and capacity for unremorseful criminal misconduct are concerned. See the documentary, “Clinton Cash.”Under present and past naturalization Statutes and under U.S. Court law decisions—decisions going back to the 19^th Century—Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been denied citizenship given her penchant for lying to federal officials. Such a person is beyond redemption. No one ought to be surprised, then, at Hillary Clinton’s audacity, as a citizen of the United States, to claim the Office of U.S. Presidency for herself, as her God-given right—and as the God-given right of her offspring in years to come.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.