Hil­lary’s Email Prob­lem

Trillions - - Table Of Contents - Photo: Js­tone / Shut­ter­stock.com

The emails Hil­lary deleted may just yet land her in jail.

Much has been writ­ten about the chal­lenges Hil­lary Clin­ton has faced re­gard­ing the pri­vate email server at her home dur­ing her ten­ure as Sec­re­tary of State un­der Pres­i­dent Obama. Most of those ar­ti­cles go to her po­ten­tially will­ful dis­re­gard for Fed­eral rules about use of pri­vate email for her gov­ern­ment po­si­tion. Others ad­dress the risk to Na­tional Se­cu­rity such a server may have cre­ated, with highly sen­si­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tions likely go­ing out with­out nec­es­sary fire­walls or en­cryp­tion.

All that may get her a slap on the wrist from au­thor­i­ties. But her real prob­lem with at least some of those emails now ap­pears to be as ev­i­dence against her, her hus­band, and the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion as part of a much larger and pos­si­bly crim­i­nal en­ter­prise. An en­ter­prise that right now looks like it could in­clude in­ter­na­tional money laun­der­ing and the so­lic­i­ta­tion of bribes in ex­change for po­lit­i­cal and other fa­vors to in­di­vid­u­als and or­ga­ni­za­tions out­side the gov­ern­ment.

Hil­lary had deleted the damn­ing emails prior to hand­ing over the server but hit­ting the delete key does not ac­tu­ally delete a file. Even a sim­ple re­for­mat­ting of a hard drive un­der Win­dows won’t do it. The FBI was able to re­cover the deleted emails. The more shock­ing charges broke in a story posted some weeks ago orig­i­nally in an ar­ti­cle by on­line re­porter Frank Hugue­nard for The Huff­in­g­ton Post. That

1 post, which for rea­sons that have not been dis­closed has been taken down from the pub­li­ca­tion, was it­self trig­gered by an ear­lier ar­ti­cle by The New York Times go­ing back to 2015 by Jo Becker and Mike Mcin­tire.

2

The sto­ries al­lege that a col­league of Bill and Hil­lary Clin­ton, Frank Gius­tra, a wealthy Canadian min­ing mag­nate, con­spired with the Clin­tons for an elab­o­rate and quite il­le­gal money laun­der­ing scheme.

As the New York Times ar­ti­cle ex­plains, sev­eral years ago Gius­tra and others worked to­gether to found, ex­plore, and make prof­itable a ma­jor ura­nium min­ing com­pany with prop­er­ties in Wy­oming. Those mines were even­tu­ally sold off to a Rus­sian in­vest­ment group which even­tu­ally gave the Rus­sians own­er­ship of ap­prox­i­mately 20% of all ura­nium pro­duc­tion in the United States.

Now add to this story that Gius­tra and his col­leagues had been ma­jor donors to the char­i­ta­ble en­ter­prises such as Bill and Hil­lary Clin­ton’s Clin­ton Foun­da­tion. This is where the deal be­gins to get messy for the

Clin­tons, be­cause with ura­nium iden­ti­fied by the U.S. Gov­ern­ment as a Strate­gic As­set, one of the Fed­eral agen­cies that had to ap­prove the deal was the State De­part­ment. That ap­proval went through smoothly, un­der the di­rec­tion of then Sec­re­tary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton.

The ob­vi­ous con­flict of in­ter­est there is bad enough. But things also be­came worse when, as the New York Times ar­ti­cles sug­gests, the Clin­tons helped fam­ily friend and Clin­ton Foun­da­tion donor Gius­tra also cut a deal on the same Rus­sian-con­nected team’s ura­nium-min­ing in­ter­ests in Kaza­khstan se­cure “a flow of cash” back to the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion. The ar­ti­cle fur­ther al­leges that these monies went on top of what were also other undis­closed do­na­tions from Gius­tra and his col­leagues to the Foun­da­tion, with those do­na­tions alone run­ning from a min­i­mum of around $2 mil­lion to po­ten­tially tens of mil­lions of dol­lars, ac­cord­ing to Hugue­nard.

As to the proof that backs that up, the fi­nan­cial trails them­selves may be dif­fi­cult to track but not com­pletely. There is also the high like­li­hood that some of those home server emails that Hil­lary Clin­ton and her now le­gally im­mu­nized aide Bryan Pagliano, who worked on the pri­vate server, man­aged will show even more of this story. Which may be, when the full truth comes out, why the FBI was so adamant about restor­ing as many of the emails Clin­ton and her team deleted be­fore turn­ing the data over to the FBI for re­view. Most of those deleted emails, ac­cord­ing to par­al­lel re­ports, have now been re­stored and are go­ing through re­view.

Ac­cord­ing to Hugue­nard ar­ti­cle about the sit­u­a­tion, James Comey, the Di­rec­tor of the Fed­eral Bureau of In­ves­ti­ga­tions (FBI), is “in­creas­ingly con­vinced” that Hil­lary Clin­ton did break the law just by hav­ing her own pri­vate State De­part­ment email setup at home. The sit­u­a­tion is far worse than that for the Clin­tons, how­ever, as “ca­reer agents” at the FBI are said to have dis­closed that Di­rec­tor Comey will soon be rec­om­mend­ing to U.S. At­tor­ney Gen­eral Loretta Lynch that crim­i­nal rack­e­teer­ing charges be filed against the Clin­tons. The grounds: that the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion is an “on­go­ing crim­i­nal en­ter­prise” in­volved in money laun­der­ing and so­lic­it­ing bribes in ex­change for var­i­ous fa­vors, in­clud­ing the au­tho­riza­tion of the sale of the Canadian-owned Wy­oming ura­nium mines to Rus­sian in­vestors. There have even been state­ments that the Hil­lary Vic­tory Fund and the Demo­cratic Na­tional Com­mit­tee may be im­pli­cated in the con­spir­acy as well.

Whether the rec­om­men­da­tion will ever turn into real crim­i­nal charges from the Jus­tice De­part­ment is, how­ever, it­self al­most as fuzzy as the fi­nan­cial trail of bribes from Gius­tra and others to the Clin­ton Foun­da­tion. Be­cause Loretta Lynch is not just an ap­pointee of the cur­rent Demo­cratic-run Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. She also ear­lier served as U.S. At­tor­ney for the East­ern Dis­trict of New York from 1999-2001 un­der the Fed­eral lead­er­ship of then-pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, and re­mains a close per­sonal friend of both Bill and Hil­lary.

That last part is be­hind why such a firestorm emerged when, dur­ing the last week of June, a con­ver­sa­tion be­tween Bill Clin­ton and At­tor­ney Gen­eral Lynch in a pri­vate plane formed such a con­tro­versy. Both claimed they just dis­cussed fam­ily is­sues but it is that per­sonal bond which makes it most dif­fi­cult for many to be­lieve the At­tor­ney Gen­eral will crack down on the Clin­tons. Even if the ev­i­dence that does emerge is highly dam­ag­ing. And even if she claims she will do what­ever her rank­ing of­fi­cers rec­om­mend in the case.

In the mean­time, Wik­ileaks Founder Julian As­sange says he will be leak­ing ma­te­ri­als soon that should lead to Hil­lary Clin­ton’s be­ing in­dicted. The FBI also talked with Sec­re­tary Clin­ton for a num­ber of hours on July 2, and what they may have dis­cussed or learned there re­mains sealed for the time be­ing.

The Clin­tons have a long his­tory of be­ing un­der se­ri­ous crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tions but have al­ways man­aged to evade jus­tice. Per­haps this time jus­tice will pre­vail and this par­tic­u­lar min­ion of sin­is­ter forces won’t make it back into the White House.

1) “Hil­lary Clin­ton to be In­dicted on Fed­eral Rack­e­teer­ing Charges,” pub­lished May 29, 2016, by Frank Hugue­nard for The Huff­in­g­ton Post. At this writ­ing, a copy is avail­able at: http://archive.is/berj6#se­lec­tion-1141.0-1141.62

2) “Cash Flowed to Clin­ton Foun­da­tion Amid Rus­sian Ura­nium Deal”, by Jo Becker and Mike Mcin­tire, April 23, 2015, in The New York Times.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.