As the so called political process narrowed the presidential candidates down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, it was decision time. Who would we select and why?
We were not "fans" or partial to either of the presidential candidates. Donald Trump as a billionaire business man had a long list of questionable traits - and the majority of elites don't get rich by being a nice honorable person. Hillary Clinton also had serious negative traits and her public record was not flattering, and in fact, quite condemning. Our mediocre two party system produced two extremely disappointing choices, so the old cliche of the "lesser of two evils" was in effect. It is sad that most don't vote for someone, as much as they vote against someone else. This was our situation, we would be voting against someone. The rationale of this decision would not be based on political ideology, popular opinion, or media hype; but based in cold hard facts.
Having retired from the Air Force and Boeing Defense where I had a Top Secret clearance with multiple special access levels, I was extremely familiar with the requirements and responsibility for handling and safeguarding classified information. When I departed employment from both the Air Force and Boeing, I was required to further affirm that I would not disclose any information on projects I worked on - this nondisclosure agreement is binding for life.
For those not familiar with the requirements to obtain access to classified information, I suggest you read the standard nondisclosure agreement, Standard Form 312. The wording in this agreement is very clear and specific about responsibilities and accountability for handling and safeguarding classified information. This agreement is required for ALL who are granted access.
If you read the above SF312 nondisclosure agreement, you should have comprehended that what constitutes a violation is very simple, and in clear black and white wording. At no time did the agreement mention "intent" or anything that the media is promoting to discredit and minimize the seriousness of this issue - the issue commonly referred to as the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton, as a lawyer, fully comprehended the client-attorney confidentiality agreements. That in her other roles in government, had intimate knowledge of classified information and the responsibility it entailed. There is no reasonable doubt, that she did not know in full detail, her responsibilities for handling and safeguarding classified information - but alas that is not what is reported on the media websites or television news channels. So when there is so much propaganda on this issue, only the cold hard facts should be considered.
Below is a revealing news clip that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, confirms that Hillary Clinton violated the trust and confidence placed in her to handle and safeguard classified information.
If the video is not clear the transcripts of this hearing follow:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails 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 information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used 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 emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
The facts about Hillary Clinton's email scandal are available on the internet from multiple reliable websites, but you will need to separate fact from fiction. There should be no reasonable doubt in anyone's opinion about the facts and that Hillary Clinton violated the law.
So on 23 September 2016, we mailed our Florida absentee ballots from the Philippines. We voted 100% against Hillary Clinton as it was the only right and moral choice we were presented by our flawed two party system.
Now for the rest of the story..............
The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal despite the cold hard facts has not resulted in any charges or prosecutions. This situation has highlighted that the American system of justice is broke.
However, it is not only the justice system that is broke and corrupt, but those with oversight, investigative authority, and have sworn to uphold the laws. The scale of this corruption defies imagination.
- Members of congress, yes both Republican and Democrat, failed in their oversight responsibilities. It is not enough to hold hearings and have a conversation - we deserve elected officials that have the ethical and morale backbone to do what they swore to do when they accepted political office - uphold the law.
- The criminal and investigative agencies, of which there are many, totally failed by all measures. This email scandal is not just about Hillary Clinton, but those who also enabled it by inaction. Each governmental agency has supposed security experts who's role is to manage all matter related to security - yet no one was held to account for this negligent behavior. An email implies there was a sender and receiver - each of these had a responsibility to verify the method of transmission of classified information - yet no one is held to the standard required by law. The violations of law are so self evident - yet the investigators are so incompetent to piece the obvious facts together - yet no investigator is cited for dereliction of duty. The issues here could go on endlessly.
- The judicial branches all failed to perform the duties they took an oath to perform. As justice remains unfulfilled, this will forever be a stain on America and what most believe it once stood for - equal justice for all.
- The complicity of the media in propagandizing this issue based on the ideology of their owners reveals that facts and truth are no longer relevant to those who claim the right of the freedom of the press.
- The average public - so misinformed and unable to ascertain the truth, so biased and divided by political ideology, so closed minded by illicit hate of opposing opinions, so irrational in their group-think mentality - maybe the unresolved outcome of this whole issue is intended to maintain a level of divisive harmony and conformity.
As Donald Trump was the recipient of our vote against Hillary Clinton - all we can hope is he will do what is best for America - time will tell............
