Hillary’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Cannot Be Undone

By Roger J. Katz, Attoney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- “Let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” ~ Thomas Paine

Lost in the moment of the Dallas shooting tragedy is the serious matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s mishandling of official Government information. Many are those who would excuse this conduct. Most citizens likely would not. No American should.

As awful as the gunning down of police officers by a lunatic is to contemplate, our Country, a Sovereign Nation, grounded upon a system of laws and a Bill of Rights, can survive this tragedy and others like it. Police departments around the Country can cope with lunatics, criminals, and terrorists if politicians in Washington D.C. would not second-guess police officers’ actions and if they would restrain themselves from running roughshod over them, and let due process take its course.

But, can this Nation cope with a renegade ex-Secretary of State occupying the White House?

It is more than doubtful. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the 45th President of the United States, she will have the willingness and power to undermine the Constitution, more than any U.S. President in recent times, beginning with the Second Amendment. The scorn she holds for our Second Amendment is evident. The American People know exactly where she stands on gun possession and gun ownership in this Country.

The damage she might do is not only limited by her determination and desires but by the powers she would wield as U.S. President. Those powers she would wield as President would be second to none. She would control the vast intelligence apparatuses, the military, and the federal police forces. She would mold public education and even exert control over mass media.

Should Congress fail to yield to her devious determination, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as United States President Hillary Clinton, would make law through executive fiat. Hillary Clinton has proved, time and again, she does not respect “the rule of law”—the bedrock of our Nation. Yet, we are a Nation grounded on the rule of law, as our founders intended. Our Nation is not grounded on rule by mere mortal men (or women).

Exhibit A

Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State makes up “Exhibit A” of her willingness to break the law. We see this through her obvious incompetency, through her disrespect for our Nation’s laws, and through the harm she would inflict on this Country—harm she would inflict on our Country with abandon and alacrity. Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State should serve as a warning to the American People. For, as she has operated as Secretary of State—as someone who perceives herself well above the law—so she will most certainly operate as President of the United States. Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State presage her actions as U.S. President.

The mainstream media says F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, determined—after investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of several private email servers to conduct official Government business—that Clinton committed no crime. The mainstream media says this because Comey told the American public, in his July 5, 2016 statement, he will recommend not indicting Hillary Clinton on criminal charges.

The mainstream media has it wrong. The F.B.I. Director’s recommendation to the Attorney General not to indict Hillary Clinton on criminal charges does not, ipso facto, mean Hillary committed no crime. The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey said no such thing, nor did he intimate any such thing.

The F.B.I. Director said, in his July 5, 2016 statement to the American People, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime; that she had, in fact, committed a crime continuously over several years. Further, the F.B.I. Director said, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton’s conduct amounted to a felony—that she committed a felony repeatedly.

The F.B.I. Director’s recitation of a long list of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misdeeds make these points abundantly clear. Cataloging Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds in a public statement for the American People is the primary purpose for the F.B.I. Director’s unprecedented public statement to the American People. Comey intended that such evidence of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds be made manifestly clear to the American People. The tacit question posed to the American People as implied through Comey’s recitation of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds is this: Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a person whom American citizens truly wish to represent both them and their Country?

James Comey, F.B.I. Director, the top police official in the Land, intended for the American People to understand, full well, Clinton’s culpability for her actions. Contrary to some commentators’ remarks, Comey’s statement to the American People is not a political stunt. It isn’t grandstanding. The F.B.I. Director delivered his statement in deadly earnest.

Comey sets out, clearly, cogently, comprehensively, categorically, and convincingly a litany of damning evidence against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Listening to Comey’s lengthy delineation of Hillary Clinton’s wrongful conduct as Secretary of State, one expects him to conclude with something like this:

“I will make the following recommendation to the Attorney General: In the F.B.I.’s estimation, after conducting an extensive investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions, in which she used several private email servers, exclusively and continuously over a period of years, to conduct official Government business, in her capacity as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position, under the U.S. President, Barack Obama, the F.B.I. concludes that Hillary Rodham Clinton did in fact violate—either with actual knowledge of the wrongful, criminal nature of her actions and conduct in the handling of classified information, or through gross negligence in the handling of classified information—Section 793 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information,’ that falls under Chapter 37 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Espionage and Censorship,’ of Title 18 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Crimes and Criminal Procedure.’ As Director of the F.B.I., I, James B. Comey, do therefore recommend to the Attorney General that Hillary Rodham Clinton be indicted and prosecuted forthwith for the aforesaid federal crime, having forsaken her duty to the United States Constitution and to the American People.”

But Comey made no such recommendation to the Attorney General. This much we know. This he made clear. To the contrary, after reciting a lengthy list of criminal misconduct by Hillary Clinton, Comey asserted, singularly incongruously, that he would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be brought against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The F.B.I. Director made this assessment of Hillary Clinton’s actions:

She was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified Government documents. Still, notwithstanding his failure to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, the Director never said—nor did he imply—that Hillary Clinton had not committed a crime. The tacit conclusion to be drawn from the F.B.I. Director’s statement was that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime.

Failure to recommend indictment is not equivalent to and is not indicative of an absence of criminal conduct; and, failure to recommend indictment does not entail lack of evidence of criminal conduct. In this instance, upon the cataloging of a laundry list of criminal misconduct on the part of Hillary Clinton, James Comey makes Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct patently clear.

So, then, why didn’t the F.B.I. Director recommend bringing criminal charges against Clinton? He said he wouldn’t recommend indictment because, as he asserted, he didn’t believe that, among other things, Clinton’s criminal actions were prosecutable. That is an odd declaration to make and one that Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and a former United States Attorney, took immediate exception with. Giuliani said he was “shocked” by James Comey’s conclusion that Clinton’s actions were not prosecutable.

More shocking still was Comey’s testimony before Congress. For, two days later, on July 7, 2016, in sworn testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, James Comey seemingly retracted his tacit conclusion that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton did break the law. For he asserted, clearly, categorically and unequivocally—in contradistinction to his earlier statement to the American public—that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton didn’t break the law.

FBI Director Comey’s testimony before Congress
FBI Director Comey’s testimony before Congress

There is an obvious disconnect between James Comey’s statement to the American public on July 5, 2016 and his testimony before Congress just two days later. Second, there exists an obvious disconnect between Comey’s litany of evidence supporting indictment of Hillary Clinton and the flimsy arguments he makes against it. Third, concerning whether Hillary Clinton lied to the F.B.I., there’s also a clear disconnect between Comey’s testimony in response to questions posed by U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican-Utah, and Chairman of the Committee conducting the Hearing, and questions posed to James Comey by U.S. Congressman, Trey Gowdy, Republican-South Carolina, at the same Hearing.

U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy chairs the Select Committee on Benghazi. His worked helped bring Clinton’s criminal handling of classified Government information to light.

But that isn’t all. Since Clinton had lied to the F.B.I., she has also violated another federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which sets forth in pertinent part,

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . . imprisoned not more than 8 years . . . or both.”

So, there exists a basis to indict Clinton under federal Statute, apart from the matter of her mishandling of classified Government information. She lied outright to the F.B.I.

Clinton carries within her an air of supreme imperiousness and a feeling of imperviousness to personal harm. Indictment on criminal charges for lying to the F.B.I. would certainly preclude Clinton from continuing her campaign. So why isn’t Hillary Clinton charged with lying to the F.B.I.?

Recall, Martha Stewart—wealthy businesswoman and television personality—was sent to prison was sent to prison in 2004 precisely because she lied to the F.B.I. on a matter involving insider trading—a matter significantly less critical to our Nation’s well-being than the matter at hand. The Attorney General’s Office could forgive Martha Stewart for the crime of insider trading. But the Attorney General’s Office clearly would not forgive Stewart for lying to the F.B.I. Why, then, is our Justice Department so willing—so readily willing—to forgive Hillary Clinton for lying to the F.B.I.?

Less known, but just as serious, is the matter of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation into the nefarious goings-on of the “Clinton Foundation.” Mr. Chaffetz specifically asked the F.B.I. Director whether the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct Government business was tied into the F.B.I.’s investigation into the “Clinton Foundation.” Most curiously, James Comey refused to discuss that issue at all, simply responding essentially with a terse, no comment.

Given inconsistencies and, in some instances, curt utterances and evident reticence of the F.B.I. Director, James Come, during his testimony before Congress on July 7, 2016, and, too, given the odd dissembling in messaging and peculiar dislocation of meaning in the statement he delivered to the American People on July 5, 2016, we conclude that hidden, nefarious forces are at work protecting Hillary Clinton—are protecting the Executive Branch of Government that President Barack Obama, at the moment, presides over. This amounts to a tremendous miscarriage of justice.

There is one supreme maxim that dictates the actions of the Executive Branch of Government:

The President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” This is mandated by Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. By extension, as is certainly clear, this means that the entirety of the work force under the U.S. President—from the highest Cabinet Official to the lowliest office worker—is expected to faithfully execute the Laws of our Nation. President Barack Obama has chosen in many critical instances, not to do so; neither did Hillary Clinton who was appointed by him and who worked under him as Secretary of State; neither would Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as U.S. President Hillary Clinton. What can be done to remedy this dire state of affairs?

Attorney General, Loretta Lynch
Attorney General, Loretta Lynch

The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch could, of course, have indicted Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, regardless of James Comey’s recommendation to not bring criminal charges against the ex-Secretary of State. The Attorney General isn’t bound to accept the recommendation of the F.B.I. Director because a recommendation is just that—a suggested course of action. A recommendation is not a command. The Attorney General’s Office conducts its own review of the F.B.I.’s files.

But, Loretta Lynch won’t indict Hillary Clinton. That won’t happen because the Attorney General and the U.S. President, Barack Obama don’t want that to happen.

Obviously, the two of them—the Attorney General and the U.S. President—never wanted that to happen. Indeed, they never intended for that to happen. So the President, Barack Obama, carries on as if the entire matter of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct never happened. He takes to the road, campaigning on behalf of and together with Hillary Clinton (“Birds of a feather flock together”). The Attorney General, for her part, is happy to have this matter behind her as well. And both Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges would likely occur only if the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey had recommended indictment. Loretta Lynch has remarked she would adhere to the Director of the F.B.I.’s recommendation. But she said this only after her clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill, on July 2, 2016, came to light.

The Attorney General realized the singular impropriety of that meeting, even as she tried to argue the innocuousness of it. It was only after that meeting came to light that Loretta Lynch said she would accept whatever recommendation the Director of the F.B.I. makes.

What is left unsaid, because of this imbroglio, is that the Attorney General knew, as did the President of the United States, Barack Obama, that the Director would make “the right decision”—the only acceptable decision for Obama’s plans to have Hillary Clinton succeed him—that the F.B.I. Director would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The American People face a sad—horrific—and inescapable truth.

Wealthy, powerful, secretive, seditious elements within the United States and wealthy, powerful, secretive, insidious interests outside the United States, have, together, orchestrated a charade of justice. The U.S. Department of Justice and its salient enforcement arm, the F.B.I. has been compromised.

Can Congress set things right? Specifically, can Congress appoint independent counsel? Can Congress appoint a special prosecutor or team of special prosecutors, to review the accumulated evidence in the F.B.I.’s files and, after duly investigating those files, make its own recommendation to Congress? If that special prosecutor deems an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton appropriate, and recommends indictment, can Congress then compel the Attorney General to indict Clinton? Much is at stake for the future of this Country and for our sacred Constitution. The thought of a likely criminal occupying the highest Office in the Land should give every American pause. A likely criminal occupying that Office is not only farcical, it is appalling.

In the next article we look at the intricacies of the special prosecutor appointment process to ascertain if this is feasible—if anything can be done to override a serious travesty of justice.

Next Gun Button
Read Part 4

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Al Schmidt
Al Schmidt
5 years ago

Hillary wants gun control because she is a control freak. She wants to make Obama, Hitler, Marx, Lennon & numerous other ruthless dictators look like choir boys.

TEX
TEX
5 years ago
Reply to  Al Schmidt

The bull dyke has two chances of getting our firearms,…slim and none !

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
5 years ago

I feel like Comey over step his bounds. He should have only conducted an investigation like most law enforcement. Then it’s up to the prosecutor to decide to file charges. Instead Comey went out of his way to help Clinton and acted like a prosecutor by not recommending charges. It’s not his decision to make.

Now compare Comey’s Clinton investigation to a Navy Reservist. Very similar, but different results.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/07/comeys-fbi-helped-convict-navy-reservist-handled-classified-materials-inappropriately/

This whole thing reeks of corruption.

Mike McAllister
Mike McAllister
5 years ago

I handled classified in the military and let me tell you If I had done 1/10 of what Clinton did I would still be in prison and I retire 22 years ago!! Don’t know what I served for if this is what justice has come to in the USA!!!

Colonialgirl
Colonialgirl
5 years ago

This is what happens when you have members of the criminal gang in all the positions of Power and control in the government,
CEO CROOK: President Obama
Law Enforcement crook: FBI Head Comey
Justice Dept: Obama appointee Lynch

This is the way crooked cities like Chicago operated for many years and still operates. Anybody remember the Original Mayor Daley; Anybody care to remember where Obama came from?

HOW do you get justice when the gang controls the government?

hijinx60
hijinx60
5 years ago

Trump stated a while back that the Statute of Limitations was a looong time and implied that he would prosecute crooked Hillary. I have noticed that he hasn’t mentioned this lately most likely so as not to expose his hand. Maybe also to preserve his life. There is a long string of bodies behind her and Obozo.

tomcat
tomcat
5 years ago

A picture of her that close up when I am trying to drink my coffee almost made me throw back up in the cup. Bad, bad, bad.

hijinx60
hijinx60
5 years ago
Reply to  tomcat

, I get the same reaction anytime I see her or Obozo’s picture.

don ystaas
don ystaas
5 years ago

yes I agree with your statements, I just seems that its been going on so long that the USA as we were taught as children by our parents will never come back, the corruption in D.C. is just criminal, I was told years ago as a young man by a WWII veteran that there are 3 boxes that keep us from tyranny they are the voting box, the jury box and the cartridge box. Its seems as though we are on the verge of losing them. I am old, its our children, and the future of our grandchildren that really… Read more »

ROGER KATZ
ROGER KATZ
5 years ago
Reply to  don ystaas

don ystass, Thank you for your response. The WWII veteran whom you spoke with summed up well the mechanisms that help preserve our Republic. My own father served in WWII as well, as a TBF pilot, flying the Grumman Avenger. He saw action first-hand and was a highly decorated Naval Officer. After the War he raised his family, lived a quiet life, and took pleasure in the simple things of life. I am proud to be his son. He told me once that a man is nothing who does not have integrity. Integrity is an essential quality in one’s character.… Read more »

Lowell
Lowell
5 years ago

Two things – Comey is afraid for his own physical safety. He doesn’t want to be found in a Washington DC park having “committed suicide.” Second, if Hillary were to be charged now, Obama could just pardon her and that would be the end of it. A president that she doesn’t have by the balls(like she does with Barry) could indict her starting next February. Not that I think Trump actually will, but he’s the only chance you have if you believe that Washington can somehow be redeemed through the ballot box. I think we’re way, way, way passed the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Lowell

@Lowell She has to be convicted before pres. Soetoro can pardon her. I do agree that an indictment by a Trump USDOJ would be better. A Trump FBI investigation of Barry Soetoro’s eligibility to be president would be good, too, so we should push him after the election.

truckeral
truckeral
5 years ago
Reply to  Lowell

Comey as been a Clinton ass kisser and coverup man going back to the corrupt duo’s days in Arkansas.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  truckeral

@truckeral Really? I’d like to read more about Comey being a Clinton minion. Can you give me a reference, please?

Lowell
Lowell
5 years ago

Indicting Hillary will bring down half of Washington. That’s the whole problem. The Clinton’s figured out a long time ago that you can get away with whatever you want if you make enough of the right people into partners. Government does not attract self-sacrificing people. It attracts the corrupt, the ego-manical, and the incompetent. People who CAN do, people who cannot get government jobs. People who want nothing more than to tell everyone what to do run for election.