Why I believe Hillary is a Felon
by Bernard Brandt
Over the course of the last year, I have repeatedly stated that I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a felon. I have risked losing the friendship of one of my oldest of friends in doing so. I have caused considerable comment from among other of my friends because of this. Nonetheless, I believe this to be true. Permit me, finally, to explain just why I believe this.
Basically, Merriam-Webster defines a ‘felon’ as one who has either been convicted of or has committed felonies. Obviously, since Ms. Clinton has not been convicted of felonies, save perhaps in the court of public opinion, I must therefore believe that Clinton has committed at least one felony.
I suppose that I could say that the State Department, in its examination of Ms. Clinton’s conduct, has found that she has violated any number of provisions of the Official Secrets Act, in the course of her actions in having a private, unsecured server in her own home. While the State Department report was careful only to cite general, and not specifically criminal, statutes, it would be a simple matter to track them down. Nonetheless, I think a case could be made that unless there was actual proof of the specific intent for those statutes to apply, then we should also apply the standard of innocent until proven guilty for these statutes.
We could also examine the repeated statements made by Ms. Clinton, when she appeared before the several select Congressional committees as regards Benghazi, where she said that she had no prior knowledge that the attack on Benghazi was as a result of a planned attack. We could compare and contrast with the Wikileaks revelations that in fact, Ms. Clinton had known almost from the start that the attack on the embassy in Benghazi had been planned and coordinated. I can see how, if the e-mails revealed turn out to be written by Ms. Clinton, Congress might decided to take action against her for perjury. But while that is the sort of thing which could be proved, either in a court of law, should Ms. Clinton lose the election, or before Congress in articles of impeachment, should she win, nonetheless it would be reasonable again to apply the standard of innocent until proven guilty.
But what if it should happen that, by her own admission, Ms. Clinton is guilty of violating a federal statute? And what if that can be shown, both by facts which she admits, and the law? If that were the case, then I think it would be reasonable to call Ms. Clinton a felon.
And, in fact, I think that that is just what happened. It is a matter of common knowledge that, in the course of the Benghazi hearings before Congress, Ms. Clinton admitted, under oath, that she had put all of her e-mails as Secretary of State on a private server, rather than a governmental server. She admitted, under oath, that she retained those e-mails. And she admitted, under oath, that when she was called upon to deliver those e-mails to Congress or to the State Department, that she deleted those e-mails, and destroyed the server.
But in doing so, Ms. Clinton violated 18 U.S.C. sec. 2071. Allow me to quote from that statute:
(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. (Emphasis added).
I would assert that by removing the documents from the secured government server, Ms. Clinton both violated 18 USC 2071(a), and became a custodian of those documents. I would assert also that her acts in deleting the records from the server, in wiping the hard disc of the server, and in deleting a great number of those e-mails, she violated 18 USC 2071(b) as well.
Thus, I believe that Ms. Clinton has, by her own admission. committed a number of violations of 18 USC 2071(a) and (b). The penalties for those statutes includes jail for more than one year, which is the federal requirement for such violations to be considered felonies. In short, Ms. Clinton has committed felonies, and should be considered to be a felon. But finally, under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 2071(b), she has forfeited whatever office she once had, and is disqualified from holding ANY office under the United States.
This is why I call her a felon. She has, by her own admission, committed felonies. This is also why I do not refer to Ms. Clinton as ‘Madam Secretary’. By her actions, she has forfeited the right to that title. She has also forfeited whatever right she might have had to become President of the United States.
I suppose that Ms. Clinton is acting on the hopes that she will either become President, or if not, will obtain a Presidential pardon from the current President. I will note, however, that under the terms of the U.S. Constitution, such a pardon gives remission from all offenses save for articles of impeachment before the U.S. Congress and Senate. In the event that Ms. Clinton were to become President, one would expect her to face such articles soon after the election.
For my part, I am voting for Donald Trump. I do so, not because I particularly like the man, or his policies. I do so, because I will not be a party to the inevitable articles of impeachment which would be brought against Ms. Clinton, were she to be elected. I suggest that people may want to take this matter under consideration in their votes for or against the respective parties.