Hillary's Must be Elected President To Stay Out Of Jail - Probability of Her Going To Jail = approximately 85%

The offenses laid at H. Clinton's doorstep relating to the "email scandal" would prohibit her from seeking the presidency and, of course, from becoming president. But, at this point in time (March 2016), no such actual charges have been brought against her. The odds of charges being brought against her, in my opinion, are about 50-50.

The title, above, stipulates that, again in my opinion, that unless she becomes President she will most likely go to jail.

These laws (and the executive order) directly relate to the security of our Nation. H. Clinton, by her own admission is in violation of most of the specifics of the above. Before presenting my logic on this, let's take a look at just 2 of the actual laws involved (there are many others) and some other background:


Law A

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101. Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Notice the underlined portions of the above. H. Clinton has admitted having a server outside the control of the federal government while she was Secretary of State; and has admitted to having State Department records stored on that server. Further, she also has asserted that she authorized the deletion of some 30,000 email from her server.

Also of note is that the above law does not address anything relative to the proper/improper handling of classified information. Laws governing classified information are totally separate.

The immediate below identifies the rules/penalties for mishandling classified information:

Law B

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -

   (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

   (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

   (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

   (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

This link provides significantly more on the handling of classified information. And, it addresses Executive Order 13526 of 2009. For a complete text of this executive order, Click Here.

During the ongoing investigation by the FBI on her activities, she has repeatedly stated that the investigation is nothing more than a "security review". Well, the FBI does NOT conduct security reviews. That is the job of the DoDCAF (formally DISCO). The FBI conducts criminal investigations.

She also has repeatedly claimed that no document on her server had "classified markings". The implied implication from her is that there was no classified data/information on her server. First, the lack of a "marking" does NOT indicate a lack of classified information. Anyone who has had access to classified information knows this all too well.

Unfortunately for H. Clinton, investigations so far has uncovered over 1,000 emails containing classified information. Quite a few with information at the TOP SECRET and SPECIAL ACCESS levels.

Now, it should be obvious that H. Clinton did not violate these rules and laws by herself. But, she had to have had knowledge of what was going on and, more to the point, had to have either authorized the violations or allowed them to occur.

Logic for the assertion in the title of this offering; i.e. the only way for H. Clinton to avoid heavy fines and time in jail is to become the next President.

1. If the incoming president is a Republican, it is fairly well certain that he (i.e., there are no longer any women running on the Republican side) will, or should, seek that charges against H. Clinton and others be filed.

No one should be above the laws of our Nation - no matter who they are. This and past administrations have too often abused the principle of prosecutorial discretion. The powerful seem to avoid penalties where the not-so-powerful are held accountable.

2. If the next President is a Democrat, there will significant pressure to charge H. Clinton and others for this issue.

The next president, of course, won't have to have her charged; but, the pressure will be very large. A continuation of certain people, peoples, and groups being "above the law" will be thwarted by the force of public opinion.

3. The current President could, in fact, pardon her of any convicted crime.

But, unless H. Clinton actually confesses and is found guilty there would be nothing for this President to "pardon". If she confesses/is found guilty, then she would not be able to serve as President (or any other government office) per Law A, above, aside from a pardon by the sitting President. If charges are brought against her and she does NOT confess, the trial would last long after the next president takes office.

4. She could plead guilty to a single violation of a part of Law A, above, by agreeing that the change be a misdeanor - NOT a felony (i.e., no jail time). Then, the president could pardon her.

However, the apparent violations are so many and so diverse, not even including the ones realated to National Security, that subsequent charges could be brought against her. Then, she would be unable to run for office (i.e., Law A), much less serve.

5. Of course, the current President could do a "Pre-Emptive Pardon" applicable to all crimes related to the email scandal, charged or not.

But, imagine the political blowback of such an action. Letting H. Clinton go free while subjecting the many others complicit to prosecution. What a travesty. However, consider the ramifications if the President granted a blanket "Pre-Emptive Pardon" to any and all persons complicit. This would be the single greatest thwarting of justice in the history of the United States.

It would have the secondary effect of letting off scott free anyone who actually committed treason by divulging classified information stored on her server.

Is this "blanket" pardon possible? Of course! Likely? No!

6. Even if H. Clinton was not charged nor convicted and became the next President, she could, and should, still be held accountable and spend time in jail.

How? The statute of limitations on most federal crimes is 5 years. For cases involving classified information (i.e., espionage), this limitation is 10 years. H. Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. As early as 2009, knowledge of the separate server was evident. The Benghazi incident occurred in 2012. In March of 2015 it became known that she used her personal server exclusively as Secretary of State.

Let us assume that she became the next President. During her tunue as president the statute of limitations "clock" stops; and, "restarts" as soon as she leaves office. Therefore, charges could and should be brought after her presidency - the stature of limitations would not have "run out".


For a related piece on this topic, Click Here

As it is widely known the Obamas and the Clintons are not exactly BFFs. On this, Click Here and Click Here.

So, why would Obama grant her a pardon - any type of pardon? Circulating the news are indications that Obama would love to serve on the Supreme Court. With the passing of Justice Scalia there is an opening on the Supreme Court which is not likely to be filled until the next President takes office. So, has a deal been struck? A pardon for Clinton if she nominates Obama to the Supreme Court? Stranger and more sleazy deal have been made.

No one should be above the law. The various ways in which H. Clinton can be held accountable are many. One of the simplest ways is to consider that she actually confessed. Watch the video of her admitting to violation U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101. Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b, as noted above. The video starts with her discussing her server not being part of the US Government system. Her claims of it being authorized are not supported by facts; the only person who could have authorized her server's use was the president. He didn't authorize such and her doing so went directly against his own memorandum directive. Her claims that others have done the same thing sounds like a child saying, "Well, Mom, the other kids are doing it." Click To Watch.

Let us hope that true justice prevails.