WASHINGTON, March 28, 2016 – Hillary Clinton is in big trouble. The Democratic presidential front-runner may soon be hauled in for questioning regarding her illegal handling and storage of U.S. government secrets on her unsecured home email server.
The computer tech that worked for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign and set up her home computer server when she served as secretary of state, Bryan Pagliano, was recently granted immunity in exchange for information on what Clinton and her staff knew and when they knew it.
And this is where things get very dicey for Hillary. It is usually during these FBI interviews that the slightest verbal misstep could – and usually is – considered “making false statements.”
It’s the law. Section 100 of Title 18 of United States Code to be exact.
When former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused in 2009 of attempting to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by newly elected President Barack Obama, a Chicago jury was only able to agree on one single count of the 23-count indictment against him: that he lied to investigators.
On that conviction alone, he was sentenced to serve 14 years in a Colorado federal lockup.
Remember the conviction of domestic diva Martha Stewart in 2004? Many still believe she was sent up river for selling her shares of ImClone after receiving an insider tip that the FDA would deny the pharmaceutical company’s application for its cancer-fighting drug Erbitux.
Selling ahead of the FDA’s announcement saved Stewart a tidy $51,200. The New York jury that convicted Stewart, however, did so for “willfully and knowingly” lying to Security and Exchange Commission and FBI investigators.
“Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the breadth of this statute (and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors) is awesome. Congress has regulated so many areas of our lives and federalized so many functions that the reach of Section 100 is virtually boundless,” says attorney Solomon L. Wisenberg of the law firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in a piece written for FindLaw.com.
“Even a decent person who tries to stay out of trouble can face criminal exposure under Section 100 through a fleeting conversation with government agents.”
So, what is Wisenberg’s advice? Lawyer up immediately.
The point is, if the federal government wants to put you behind bars, all it has to do is ask you a few questions. If you misspeak, mumble an inaccurate statement by accident or out of nervousness, you could go to prison for a very long time.
But as attorney Wisenberg notes above, the application of Section 100 is completely at the “discretion” of prosecutors.
When Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex) of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch if the “FBI were to make a [criminal] referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for the purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they – are you?”
Cornyn’s question clearly concerned a potential FBI criminal referral to Justice of Hillary.
“It would not be an operation of law,” said Lynch, “it would be an operation of procedures.”
Yes, a matter of prosecutorial “discretion.”
There is little doubt that should the FBI drag Hillary in for questioning, she will answer each one – an attorney at her elbow. She also knows it would not look good if, like the IRS’ infamous Lois Lerner, she pled the Fifth to prevent running afoul of Section 100 of Title 18 of U.S. Code.
After all, she is running for president, a job that requires appointing an IRS commissioner, an Attorney General and members of the federal bench – including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hillary, like her husband, is a habitual liar. But she knows that our nanny state – with its growing authoritarian power – favors those that favor it.
And Hillary is nothing if not a big fan of big government.
We small prey, on the other hand, are most definitely subject to the unequal application of our nation’s “discretionary” laws.
Not so the state’s favored, fast-moving predators. You know, carnivorous creatures like the Clintons.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.