The Clinton Record | Frontpage Mag
Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:49
Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.
Clinton's Private Email Server & the Espionage Act
Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she transmitted '-- in violation of government regulations '-- all of her official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1 And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2
Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that she found it ''easier,'' ''better,'' ''simpler'' and more convenient to ''carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.''3 It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server, but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed to smash them with a hammer.4
Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least 2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained classified material.5 As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain, each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6 And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7
In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said ''the odds are pretty high'' that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Clinton's unsecured email server.8
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of our country's most hostile enemies around the world.
The Clinton Foundation Scandals
In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation ''has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.''9
As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10 Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15
Even during Clinton's tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.
Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife's term as secretary.16
In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton's 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.17
In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18
But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn't it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and ''other expenses.''19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.
Clinton's Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal
Vowing that Mrs. Clinton will ''preven[t] Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,'' the Clinton presidential campaign website assures Americans that ''Hillary will vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran.'' Is this a good thing? Consider that the agreement's key provisions were as follows:
Iran was permitted to keep more than 5,000 centrifuges. Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief. Russia and China were permitted to supply Iran with weapons. Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from its military installations, and was promised that it would receive 14 days' notice for any request to visit a given site. Only inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites; thus there would be no American inspectors. An embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran would be officially lifted in 5 years. Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program would remain intact. The U.S. pledged that it would provide technical assistance to help Iran develop its nuclear program and protect its nuclear facilities, supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes. Sanctions would be lifted on critical parts of Iran's military. Iran was not required to release American prisoners whom it was holding on trumped-up charges.21 As a result of this nuclear deal that Mrs. Clinton so enthusiastically supports, Iran is guaranteed of having a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the scores of millions of women in the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere, whose very lives have been placed in irreversible peril as a result of this deal.
Clinton Helps Russia Gain Control of 20% of All U.S. Uranium
In 2007-08, a Canadian named Ian Telfer, chairman of a South African uranium-mining company called Uranium One, funneled millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. In June 2010, the Russian government made an extremely generous offer to Uranium One's shareholders. If the offer were to be accepted, Russia would gain a 51% controlling stake in the company.
But because Uranium One controlled one-fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves '-- and uranium, a key component in both nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry, is considered a strategic asset with implications for American national security '-- the deal with Russia could not be permitted without the approval of the American government. Specifically, that approval could be granted only by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is composed of several of the most powerful members of the cabinet '-- the Attorney General as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Treasury, Homeland Security, Energy, and State. (The latter, of course, was Hillary Clinton.)22
Without the approval of these seven Obama administration officials, Russia's acquisition of Uranium One could not have taken place. All seven, including Hillary Clinton, gave their go-ahead for the deal. As a result, the Russian government took control of fully 20% of all uranium production capacity in the United States.23
In June 2010 '-- the very month in which the Russian acquisition of Uranium One was approved by the CFIUS '-- Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow for the astronomical sum of $500,000. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. And Mr. Clinton's speaking fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.24
But hey, who cares? At least Hillary Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless millions whose safety has been placed in jeopardy by permitting American uranium to be gobbled up by a hostile, fascist Russia.
The Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton's Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and Syria
Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in the city of Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. American personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Clinton State Department for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these requests were either denied or ignored.25
On the night of September 11, 2012, a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi with great violence.26 In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
For weeks thereafter, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what had occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as a carefully orchestrated act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video.
For the administration, it was vital to continue putting forth this false narrative because, with the presidential election only a few weeks away, nothing could be permitted to puncture the Obama-Clinton talking points: ''Al Qaeda is on the run'' and ''Osama bin Laden is dead.''27
In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the YouTube video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.28
On January 23, 2013 '-- fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi '-- Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. At one point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked her whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, ''I do not know. I have no information on that.''29
But a March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. And another Times article described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels (who were fighting Syrian President Assad) in precisely that manner.30 In other words, Clinton had lied in her congressional testimony to Rand Paul.
It should be noted that the Syrian rebels whom Clinton and Obama were aiding consisted of Islamic jihadists, many of whom were affiliated with Al Qaeda. In July 2016, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed that a batch of hacked DNC emails contained information proving that Clinton, contrary to what she had said in her congressional testimony in 2013, knew as early as 2011 that the U.S. was sending arms from Libya to jihadists in Syria.31
And in October 2016, a Fox News report indicated that Obama and Clinton had also arranged for the provision of weapons to radical jihadists in Libya.32
In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed '-- in the basement of the State Department's headquarters '-- a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Hillary Clinton's chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton's deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks.33
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including: (a) the Libyan and Syrian women whose lives were destroyed by the jihadists whom Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported, and (b) the wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of the four Americans who were slaughtered by jihadists in Benghazi.
The Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton's Closest Aide
Hillary Clinton's closest aide for many years has been Huma Abedin, whose late father, Syed Abedin, was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA grew out of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as ''the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.''34
Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a prominent member of the Muslim Sisterhood '-- the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, a pro-Hamas entity that is part of the ''Union of Good,'' which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization. Saleha once wrote an article blaming America for having provoked the Islamic ''anger and hostility'' that led to the 9/11 attacks.35
From 1996-2008, Huma Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who once served as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a vehicle by which the Muslim Brotherhood promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Naseef also had ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, with whom he communicated.36 Abedin was the assistant editor of IMMA's in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence in the IMMA.37
It is vital to note that the IMMA's ''Muslim Minority Affairs'' agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is designed, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains, ''to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.''38
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women, including the hundreds of millions of women in Muslim nations who are oppressed by the very same Sharia Law that is promoted by the organization to which Huma Abedin devoted 12 years of her life.
The Deadly Consequences of Clinton's Absurd Fictions About Islam & Terrorism
In 2011 the Obama administration, in which Mrs. Clinton was obviously a major player, decided to purge, from the training materials and curricula of all federal intelligence and criminal investigators, every single item suggesting that ''jihad'' or ''Islam'' were in any way related to terrorism.39 Instead, the new objective would be ''countering violent extremism,'' improving ''cultural competency training across the United States Government,'' and promoting ''cultural awareness.''40 All told, the FBI removed more than 1,000 presentations and curriculum items that were deemed ''offensive'' or ''Islamophobic.''41
The FBI's decision to change its training materials and interrogation methods went on to have deadly serious, real-world consequences. A particularly noteworthy case involved jihadist Omar Mateen, who in June 2016 entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people while wounding 53 others. The FBI had investigated Mateen extensively for 10 months in 2013 because he had family connections to Al Qaeda, he was a member of a Shi'a terrorist organization, and he had issued terroristic threats on a number of occasions. But eventually, the FBI canceled that investigation because, in accordance with the tenets of its revised training materials, it concluded that Mateen posed no threat to anyone; that his biggest problem was the psychic pain he was suffering as a result of ''being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.'' As a result of this absurd line of reasoning, 49 innocent people from Orlando are now lying in their graves.42
Hillary Clinton agrees completely with the notion that it is both counterproductive and morally unjustified to suggest any connection between Islam and terrorism '-- the same delusional, preposterous mentality that enabled the Orlando mass murder to take place.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women and homosexuals, including the 49 people who were slaughtered in the Orlando nightclub.
Clinton's Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide Terrorism
ISIS, which evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), grew into the most powerful, well-funded horde of bloodthirsty barbarians in world history, right under Mrs. Clinton's nose, and precisely during her watch as secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes, beheadings, slaughters, and tortures of unimaginable brutality '-- and gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria '-- Clinton and President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.43
Moreover, the rise of ISIS coincided with the expansion of terrorism to unprecedented levels all over the world. According to the Global Terrorism Index, fatalities caused by terrorism increased from 3,361 in 2000, to 11,133 in 2012, to 18,111 in 2013, to 32,658 in 2014. More than half of the 2014 killings were carried out by ISIS and Boko Haram, the latter of which has pledged allegiance to ISIS.44 In other words, worldwide terrorism has spiraled out of control under Obama, Clinton, and Clinton's successor, John Kerry.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the many thousands who are killed by terrorists across the globe each year.
Clinton's Role in Squandering America's Victory in the Iraq War
ISIS's meteoric ascent to power occurred as a direct result of President Obama's decision to rapidly withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq '-- against the advice of experienced military leaders '-- in 2011. Retired Army General John M. Keane, the last American commander in Iraq, had recommended that 23,000 U.S. troops be left in place to secure the U.S. war victory. But Obama, wanting to be remembered most of all as the president who ended wars rather than fought them, left no forces behind. Beaming with pride, he frequently took credit for bringing American military involvement in Iraq to a formal close.45
Of course, when ISIS later grew into a genocidal monster, Obama tried to claim that his withdrawal from Iraq had been forced upon him by a December 2008 deal in which President Bush and Iraqi president Maliki signed a ''status-of-forces'' agreement stipulating that all U.S. troops must leave Iraq by December 2011.46
But status-of-forces agreements are often amended and renegotiated, based on evolving security concerns. Obama left no U.S. forces in Iraq for one very simple and obvious reason: he didn't want to. As Obama himself stated during a 2012 debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney: ''What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops [a far cry from the 23,000 recommended by General Keane] in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.''47
It is vital to remember, moreover, that Iraqi president Maliki would have been quite willing to accept a new status-of-forces agreement in 2011, had it stipulated that the U.S. would leave behind a contingent of troops large enough to effectively secure the peace. But when Obama and Clinton proposed to leave a mere 2,000 to 3,000 troops in Iraq, Maliki had no choice but to refuse. As National Review explains: ''[T]he problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn't worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence.''48
When Obama was deciding to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Hillary Clinton was in 100% agreement with him. As Fox News reports: ''Clinton was a leading and outspoken supporter of the Obama administration's decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.... Clinton touted the United States' commitment to Iraq in 2011 and said the Obama administration has 'a plan in place' to ensure Iraq's security.''49
Instead, Iraq turned into a beehive of jihadism, terrorism, and mass murder.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions whose lives were destroyed when a stable Iraq descended once again into anarchy and terror.
Clinton's Horrible Judgment Regarding Another Terrorist Enemy
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Clinton opposed President Bush's January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a military ''surge'' designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War '-- which had devolved into a bloody quagmire '-- back in America's favor:
In December 2006, when Bush was still contemplating the surge, Clinton said: ''Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq.''50 In January 2007, Clinton complained that the surge was ''taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success.''51 In August 2007, Clinton said: ''The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so.... It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.''52 When General David Petraeus issued a September 2007 report on the remarkably successful results that the surge was yielding, Clinton obstinately told Petraeus that his assertions required ''a willing suspension of disbelief.''53 Contrary to Clinton's erroneous predictions and dispiriting rhetoric, the troop surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that finally enabled the U.S. to crush the Iraqi insurgency. Prior to the surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19, and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14 months.54
In his 2014 memoir, Robert Gates '-- who had served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama '-- wrote that Hillary Clinton's opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she thought her own political fortunes would be affected by taking that position. For example, Gates described a ''remarkable'' exchange that he had witnessed, where Clinton, speaking retrospectively, ''told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary'' and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war.55
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions to whom she tried to deny the protection of American forces in the troop surge.
Clinton's Empty Talk Regarding Russia and China
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign website boasts that in 2010 Clinton ''worked to ensure ratification of the New START treaty, which will make the world safer by reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to their smallest size in 50 years.''56
The New START agreement with Russia limited each country's long-range nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,500.57 But while both the U.S. and Russia agreed to these limits, only America promised to freeze its technology.58 As the late constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafley wrote of the treaty:
''It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States.... The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.... This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles.... Russia explained that ... it will stick with New START 'only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.'''59
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the 150+ million women in the U.S. whose security was instantly and permanently compromised by the terms of the New Start Treaty.
Clinton's Reprehensible Treatment of Israel
In 2010, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said that during the first two years of the Obama-Clinton administration, ''Israel's ties with the United States'' had reached ''their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis of historic proportions.''60
Some may recall how Mrs. Clinton betrayed Israel in the aftermath of an infamous 2010 incident where terrorist members of a Turkish organization known as the IHH '-- which has ties to Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood '-- participated in a six-ship flotilla of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists who sailed to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel's naval ''blockade'' there. (That ''blockade'' was, in reality, a policy whereby Israel insisted on examining all imports passing through Gaza, so as to prevent the ruling Hamas government, which has sworn its permanent allegiance to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews, from importing weaponry from abroad). The flotilla's lead ship was owned and operated by IHH. When its crew refused to comply with repeated Israeli demands that it submit to an inspection of its cargo, Israeli commandos boarded the vessel and were violently attacked by IHH terrorists. In the melee that ensued, nine IHH members were killed, and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded. Thereafter, Clinton, by her own telling, ''spent '... literally years trying to get the Israelis to finally apologize to the Turks on the flotilla.''61
In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza, deep into Israel. Before long, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza. A number of those tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory '-- for the purpose of facilitating terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings against unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other supplies per tunnel.62
Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, who had served as Secretary of State Clinton's senior Mideast policy adviser, revealed that Clinton had personally assigned him the task of pressuring Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza. ''I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,'' said Ross. ''They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.'' As one analysis aptly puts it, ''Ross's admission shows that it was [Clinton] who sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled Hamas to build the terror tunnels.''63
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of Israeli Jews whose lives were placed in peril by Hamas's underground tunnels and illegally imported weaponry.
Clinton Turns Libya into a Terrorist Hell Hole
During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pushed hard for the U.S. to take military action designed to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.64 According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under President Obama, Clinton played a major role in convincing Obama to lead a protracted NATO bombing campaign against Gaddafi in 2011 '-- a campaign that lent support to opposition rebels consisting of ISIS, Ansar al-Sharia, and other local militant groups. In other words, Clinton and Obama '-- in their quest to unseat Gaddafi '-- were aiding murderous jihadists in Libya.
What is remarkable about this, is the fact that Gaddafi at that time no longer posed any threat to American national security. Indeed, just prior to the Al Qaeda-led uprising that Clinton and Obama supported, Libya was providing the U.S. with important intelligence data. Moreover, it was a prospering, secular Islamic nation that had a national budget surplus of 8.7% and was producing 1.8 million barrels of oil per day.
By the time the Obama-Clinton bombing campaign was finished, Libya's economy had shrunk by 42% and was operating at an annual deficit of 17.1%; oil production was down by at least 80%.65
According to Foreign Policy In Focus, the Obama-Clinton strategy ''plunged'' Libya ''into chaotic unrest'' and ''turned [it] into a cauldron of anarchy.''66 Today Libya is a nation teeming with jihadists, and ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful there.67
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions in Libya who are now drowning in a tsunami of terrorism.
Clinton's Plan to Import 65,000 Syrian Refugees into the U.S. As Quickly As Possible
''We have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and America to and from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,'' says the Clinton presidential campaign website.68 While this sounds like a grand idea, it begs a very obvious question: Why has Hillary Clinton explicitly called for bringing at least 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible,69 even though:
ISIS has vowed to deploy terrorist operatives to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees heading to Western nations?70 more than 1,500 terror-linked refugees, asylees and migrants entered the U.S. in 2014 alone?71 more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from ''countries of terrorist concern'' entered the United States through America's Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015?72 Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI's counter-terrorism unit, has made it clear that it is virtually impossible to screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees and coming to America?73 FBI Director James Comey has said that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct reliable background checks on the Syrian refugees, and has warned that ''there will be a terrorist diaspora [from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East] sometime in the next two to five years like we've never seen before''?74 Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that the U.S. will not ''know a whole lot'' about the refugees it accepts?75 CIA director John Brennan has said that ISIS ''is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including in refugee flows ...''?76 As a direct result of the policy that Mrs. Clinton herself has spelled out, scores of thousands of people from the very seat of ISIS's power will soon be streaming into the United States at a record pace.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless American women whose lives may be imperiled by an influx of Syrian terrorists posing as refugees.
Taking a long-range view of American migration and refugee policy, Mrs. Clinton understands that eventually, when these Syrian refugees and their relatives, and then their descendants, become registered voters, they will vote heavily Democrat, as the vast majority of immigrants from the Middle East have always done.77
And if some Americans have to get murdered along the way by terrorist infiltrators, so be it. To Mrs. Clinton, that is simply one of the costs of doing (political) business.
Immigration: Clinton Explicitly Favors Amnesty, Sanctuary Cities, and ''Open Borders''
''Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office,'' says the Clinton presidential campaign website.78 Mrs. Clinton pledges that if she is elected president, she will extend President Obama's two major executive orders on immigration, which protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation.79 She vows to do this despite the fact that Obama himself, prior to issuing his executive orders, frequently acknowledged that such actions went far beyond the proper limits of presidential authority.80 Speaking to a group of illegal immigrant high-school students in 2015, Clinton said: ''I want to do everything we can to defend the president's executive orders ... As president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further.''81
Moreover, Mrs. Clinton unequivocally supports the ''sanctuary'' policies that bar police and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. As such, these policies defy the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that Congress passed twenty years ago to require that local governments cooperate with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).82
Sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places. Of the 9,295 deportable aliens who were released after their arrest in sanctuary jurisdictions during the first eight months of 2014 alone, some 2,320 were subsequently re-arrested, on new criminal charges, soon thereafter. And before their initial release, 58% of those 9,295 aliens already had felony charges or convictions on their records, while another 37% had serious prior misdemeanor charges.83
But Mrs. Clinton's commitment to sanctuary policies is unshakable. As Xochitl Hinojosa, the Clinton presidential campaign's director of coalitions press, said in 2015: ''Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.''84
In a speech she delivered at Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, on May 16, 2013, Mrs. Clinton stated: ''My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders....''85
You read that correctly: ''open borders.''
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the many whose lives and safety are imperiled by open borders and sanctuary policies.
Clinton's Opposition to Gun Rights
Lamenting that ''too many families in America have suffered '-- and continue to suffer '-- from gun violence,'' Mrs. Clinton has stated that crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers and retailers who lawfully produced or sold a gun that was used in a crime.86 This is a way to eliminate the Second Amendment ''without firing a shot,'' so to speak, as it would inevitably cause the firearms industry to disappear.87
At a New Hampshire town hall in 2015, a man asked Mrs. Clinton whether she would consider supporting a gun buyback measure similar to the one that had been implemented in Australia: ''Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that?'' Clinton replied: ''I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.''88
In other words, Mrs. Clinton is eager to explore creative ways of eliminating the Second Amendment.
But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including those who, in the absence of the Second Amendment, will no longer be able to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and other assailants. They will no longer be among the hundreds of thousands of individuals who, each year, use guns for defensive purposes to repel or frighten away would-be attackers.89
Clinton's Plans to Expand Obamacare into a Government-Run, Single-Payer System
Stating unequivocally that she plans to ''defend and expand the Affordable Care Act'' (ACA),90 Mrs. Clinton contends that Obamacare has thus far been a great success.
Let's look, for a moment, at how successfully Obamacare has helped to cut the cost of insurance premiums. When the law was being debated and formulated, President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that under his plan, the average family would save up to $2,500 per year in annual premiums.91 The reality has been somewhat different:
A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that ''premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed '... [existing] trends.''92 The S&P Global Institute found that between 2013-15, the average market medical costs per individual increased by 69%.93 Premiums for ACA-compliant Qualified Health Plans that were sold to individuals on the Obamacare exchanges, were $2,300 more expensive than premiums for non-Qualified Health Plans, i.e., plans that were in existence before 2014 and did not comply with the mandates of the ACA.94 In 2015, premiums for the lowest-cost plans across all tiers '-- bronze, silver, gold and platinum '-- increased by a median of 10-13%.95 By September 2016, fully 16 of Obamacare's 23 state exchanges had gone bankrupt, with another one '-- the Tennessee exchange '-- ''very near collapse.''96 It is expected that by the end of 2016, UnitedHealth Group will have exited 31 of the 34 Obamacare exchanges in which it has participated, while Aetna will have left 11 of its 15 state exchanges.97 Meanwhile, Obamacare's insurance policy deductibles are skyrocketing in almost every state. As National Review reports: ''Average deductibles for silver plans '-- which accounted for nearly 70 percent of the exchanges' 9.3 million enrollees [in 2015] '-- now average $2,994. The second most popular Bronze plans have average deductibles of $5,629.... Paying $3,000 or $5,600 before their insurance kicks in simply isn't an option for most families ...''98
Hillary Clinton proposes to address the financial implosion of Obamacare by implementing a ''public option''99 '-- i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would ''compete'' with private insurers. Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes explains how disastrous such a measure would be: ''By drawing on taxpayer dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers would be 'crowded out,' leaving Americans with just one choice: a government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health sector under government control.''100
But that, in a nutshell, is Mrs. Clinton's ultimate, long-range goal: to have a ''single-payer,'' ''universal'' healthcare system that is run entirely by the federal government. Her presidential campaign website candidly states that she ''has never given up on the fight for universal coverage.''101
And what does the empirical evidence show, regarding the effectiveness of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world? It's actually quite clear. As the Cato Institute puts it, ''In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.'' By contrast: ''[T]hose countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. In other words, socialized medicine works '-- as long as it isn't socialized medicine.''102
So Hillary Clinton wants to implement a healthcare system that has failed miserably in country after country, confident that she'll get better results because she'll put smarter bureaucrats in charge of it.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women and girls deeply '-- even the 150+ million females whose lives and health will be placed in peril by the expansion of Obamacare and the pursuit of a single-payer system.
Rejecting School Vouchers for Poor Minority Children in Failing Urban Schools
Professing to have spent her entire adult life ''fighting for children,''103 Hillary Clinton dogmatically opposes the implementation of school voucher programs104 which would enable the parents of low-income, mostly-minority children who attend failing, inner-city public schools, to send their youngsters instead to private schools where they might actually have a chance of succeeding academically.
Why would anyone reject such programs, if he or she actually cared about poor minority kids?
As always, if you want to find out what motivates Mrs. Clinton, you have to follow the money. Together, the two largest teachers' unions in the United States '-- the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) '-- have given tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to political candidates since the early 1990s, and more than 95% of that money has gone to Democrats. If we also count the massive expenditures that teachers' unions make on politically oriented initiatives like television ads and get-out-the-vote efforts, the numbers become almost unfathomable. From 2007-12, the NEA and AFT together spent more than $330 million to influence elections in favor of Democrats.105
The leading objective of both the NEA and AFT is to maximize employment opportunities for dues-paying members of their unions. This is highly significant because mandatory dues constitute the very lifeblood of those unions. And voucher programs, which would siphon students as well as money away from the public schools, don't promote union membership or union dues.
So Hillary Clinton rejects voucher programs because her union benefactors oppose them.
But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women '-- even impoverished, inner-city minority women who have no choice but to send their children to public schools that are beset by academic failure and violence of monumental proportions.
''Criminal Justice Reform'': Going Soft on Crime, and Filling America's Graveyards
Hillary Clinton tells us that Americans everywhere ''are crying out for criminal justice reform'' because ''families are being torn apart by excessive incarceration,'' and ''children are growing up in homes shattered by prison and poverty.''106
How does Mrs. Clinton know that our country's current levels of incarceration are excessive? What, exactly, would be the right number of people in prison? How would we arrive at that number?
Consider some highly noteworthy facts:
In 1990, when there were about 1,149,000 prisoners in penitentiaries nationwide, there were 1,820,130 violent crimes committed that year, including 23,440 murders.107 In 2014, when there were 2,208,000 inmates in penitentiaries nationwide, a total of 1,197,987 violent crimes were committed that year, including 14,249 murders.108 So, even as the population of the United States grew by 28% between 1990 and 2014, the incidence of violent crimes declined by 46%, and the incidence of murders fell by 39%. These numbers suggest that putting more criminals in prison has helped to spare at least a million people per year from being victimized by violent crimes, and to save at least 9,000 people per year from being murdered. If we look at the numbers from this perspective, incarceration suddenly doesn't look like such a bad thing, does it?
And indeed, Mrs. Clinton herself inadvertently admitted this when she recently said, while railing against ''mass incarceration,'' that ''the numbers [of prisoners] today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.''109
Poor Hillary Clinton. She opened her mouth in an unscripted moment and accidentally told the truth.
But hey, who cares if she supports policies that result in more death and destruction? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects women, including the ones who, under her criminal-justice ''reform'' policies, would face a far greater likelihood of being abused, violated, or slain by criminals who really belonged in prison.
Fighting Voter ID Laws As ''Racist'' Schemes to Disenfranchise Minorities
At an August 2013 meeting of the American Bar Association, Mrs. Clinton lamented that ''more than 80 bills restricting voting rights'' had been ''introduced in 31 states'' during the first eight months of that year. These were generally bills that sought to institute Voter ID requirements at polling places, shorten early-voting periods, eliminate same-day voter registration, prevent the arbitrary extension of voting hours, and carefully regulate the use of absentee voting. All of these proposed measures were designed to reduce the likelihood of voter fraud, but Mrs. Clinton called them ''voter suppression'' efforts that were part of a racist scheme to ''disproportionately [disenfranchise] African-Americans, Latino[s] and young voters.''110 On another occasion, Clinton said that Voter ID laws are emblematic of a racist form of ''fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud.''111
Is Mrs. Clinton correct? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself:
A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that 24 million voter registrations '-- one-eighth of all registrations nationwide '-- were either invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million dead people who were still registered.112 A 2014 study found that two years earlier, some 155,692 registered voters in North Carolina alone had first and last names, birth dates, and final-four Social Security Number digits that matched those of voters who were registered in other states.113 The same study also found that 35,570 people who had actually voted in North Carolina, had first names, last names, and birth dates that matched those of voters who had cast ballots in other states.114 In 2008, Democrat Al Franken won a highly controversial U.S. Senate race in Minnesota by just 312 votes. It was later discovered that 1,099 felons '-- all legally ineligible to vote '-- had cast ballots in the election, almost exclusively for Franken.115 A 2006 study found that 77,000 dead people were listed on New York's statewide database of registered voters, and that as many as 2,600 of them had somehow managed to cast ballots from the grave.116In Milwaukee in 2004, approximately 5,300 more ballots were cast, than voters who were recorded as having shown up at the polls.117 In 2008, election officials nationwide had to discard at least 400,000 bogus voter registrations submitted by ACORN,118 the now-defunct criminal operation masquerading as a ''community organization.'' (Speaking at ACORN's 2006 national convention, Mrs. Clinton said: ''I thank you for being part of that great movement, that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.'')119 In 2011, a Colorado study found that of the nearly 12,000 non-citizens who were illegally registered to vote in that state, about 5,000 had taken part in the 2010 general election.120 In ten Colorado counties in 2012, voter registrations outnumbered the total voting-age population by between 4% and 40%.121 The foregoing examples represent only the barest tip of a colossal election-fraud iceberg. And Hillary Clinton knows all about it. She really isn't dumb enough to believe what she says about election fraud and voter ID. She's just counting on voters being dumb enough to believe her.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects women '-- even the ones whose votes are nullified by the ballots of people who are legally ineligible to participate in elections.
Clinton's Affiliation with Al Sharpton & Black Lives Matter
In April 2007, Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where she stated that her own presidential bid was possible only because of the dedicated work of longtime civil-rights leaders who, like Sharpton, had fought on behalf of those traditionally excluded from power positions in American life. ''I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network,'' said Clinton, ''and I don't ever remember saying 'no' to them, and I intend to remain their partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the Oval Office when I am elected President.''122
And nothing whatsoever has changed in Mrs. Clinton's estimation of Sharpton, perhaps the most repugnant racial arsonist in contemporary America, in the years since then. In April 2016, for instance, Clinton again spoke at a National Action Network event where she lauded Sharpton and his organization for steadfastly working ''on the frontlines of our nation's continuing struggle for civil rights,'' and ''in a million ways lift[ing] up voices that too often go unheard.''123
Speaking of repugnant racial arsonists, in August 2015 Mrs. Clinton held an impromptu, videotaped conversation with three Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists who were complaining about the ''mass incarceration'' of African Americans. In response to them, Clinton said: ''This country has still not recovered from its original sin [slavery] ... Your analysis is totally fair. It's historically fair, it's psychologically fair, it's economically fair.... All I'm suggesting is, even for us sinners [white people], find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people's lives.''124
A bit of background information about BLM is in order here. Founded by Marxist revolutionaries in 2013, BLM depicts the United States as a nation thoroughly awash in racism, sexism, and homophobia. Demonstrators at BLM events commonly smear white police as trigger-happy bigots who are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males. The protesters also taunt, and direct obscenities at, uniformed police officers who are on duty. Their principal hero is the Marxist icon, former Black Panther, convicted accomplice in a cop-killing, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur. At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke a quote by Shakur that includes an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.125
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, of course, it goes without saying that she respects women deeply. Oh, so deeply.
Clinton's View of the Supreme Court and Its Purpose
When Mrs. Clinton was asked, in an October 2016 presidential debate, to articulate what would be her chief considerations when appointing Supreme Court Justices, she never once mentioned fidelity to the Constitution, which is in fact the principal duty of the Court. Instead, Clinton alluded to the idea that Justices should try to balance the proverbial scales of power in favor of people who lack wealth and influence: ''I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the way the world really works '... [and] actually understand what people are up against.'' In other words, Clinton prefers Justices who seek to enforce her particular vision of ''social justice,'' rather than an ideal of blind, unbiased justice.
Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to explain that she would nominate only Justices who share her public-policy preferences vis- -vis certain hot-button, litmus-test issues:
(1) ''I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics.'' (Citizens United was a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that left intact the federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making campaign contributions to politicians, but nullified a provision barring such entities from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns'--on grounds that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from censoring any entity's right to engage in, or to fund, political speech.)
(2) ''I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. That we don't do always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise.'' (In other words, Mrs. Clinton would appoint Justices who oppose Voter ID laws, favor extended early-voting periods, support voting rights for convicted felons, and endorse universal voter registration '-- all measures that would make it significantly easier to commit voter fraud.)
(3) ''I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.''
(4) ''I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality'' (i.e., same-sex marriage).
Clinton Supports Partial-Birth Abortion
On March 12, 2003, Hillary Clinton went to the Senate floor to speak out against legislation that proposed to ban the procedure commonly known as ''partial-birth abortion'' '-- where the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits its entire body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses scissors to puncture the baby's brain and kill it while the head is still inside the mother. Defending the legality of this procedure and condemning Republicans for trying to outlaw it, Clinton argued that any attempt ''to criminalize a medical procedure'' would compromise American liberty.126
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she respects not only women, but girls as well '-- even the female babies who are subjected to atrocities like the one described above.
For Hillary Clinton, abortion is a civil liberty that should be funded not by the biological mother herself, but by all taxpayers. Indeed, Planned Parenthood '-- to Clinton's delight '-- receives more than $520 billion per year in government funding, and much of that is used to pay for abortions.127 Moreover, Mrs. Clinton has vowed to repeal what is known as the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 law that has traditionally prohibited federal funding for abortions.128 Apparently, for Mrs. Clinton ''it takes a village''129 to produce enough cultural and moral rot to fully destroy a civilization.
Clinton's Personal Persecution of a Young Rape Victim
While the Clinton presidential campaign website touts ''Hillary's plan to end campus sexual assault,'' it laments that ''many who choose to report sexual assault in the criminal justice system fear that their voices will be dismissed instead of heard.''130 But Mrs. Clinton herself took part in one of the most repulsive exhibitions of cruelty to a rape victim ever seen in an American courtroom.
The year was 1975, and attorney Hillary Clinton was defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping and beating a 12-year-old girl named Kathy Shelton. So brutal was Taylor's assault, that the victim spent five days in a coma immediately afterward; then several months recovering from the physical thrashing that accompanied the rape; plus, more than 10 years in psychotherapy.131
Mrs. Clinton knew for certain that Taylor was guilty of this crime, as she made clear years later when she discussed the case in a 1980s interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. ''He [Taylor] took a lie detector test!'' Mrs. Clinton recalled. ''I had him take a polygraph test, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.''132
Notwithstanding her certitude regarding the man's guilt, Clinton negotiated a plea bargain for Taylor by taking advantage of a prosecutorial error '-- the prosecutors had cut out and examined the blood-covered section of Taylor's underwear that proved his guilt, but then discarded the fabric, making it impossible for the defense to examine it. Because of this misstep, Clinton, confident that the prosecution would be unable to prove Taylor's guilt, pushed for a plea bargain.133
In the aforementioned 1980s interview, Mrs. Clinton laughed as she recounted how the polygraph results were clearly erroneous, and how a forensic scientist from New York was prepared to testify that Taylor could not be convicted if the underwear fabric was no longer available. When Reed asked Clinton about the outcome of the case, she replied, nonchalantly, ''Oh he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months.''134
Subsequent to the Taylor trial, a Newsday examination of court files and investigative files revealed that Mrs. Clinton had also attacked the young victim's character during the trial by calling into question her motives, her honesty, her temperament, and her ability to perceive reality '-- even though she knew with 100% certainty that her client was guilty.135
In a highly emotional June 2014 interview, Kathy Shelton accused Mrs. Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents and going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape. ''Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,'' Shelton said. ''She lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time.... She wanted it to look good, she didn't care if those guys [Taylor and an accomplice] did it or not. Them two guys should have got a lot longer time [in prison]. I do not think justice was served at all.''136
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects females, even young girls whose known rapists she defends in court, and whose trials she later recalls with self-satisfied bellows of laughter.
This, then, is Hillary Clinton: a woman who is wholly, unequivocally unfit to serve as anything more than an inmate in a federal penitentiary. She has demonstrated, time and again:
that she cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted with national security or state secrets; that she treats the paper on which the Espionage Act is written, with no more reverence than she would give to a strip of toilet paper; that she treats with similar disregard the paper on which the U.S. Constitution is written; that her judgment in matters of international conflict, diplomacy, and terrorism is an abomination; that she routinely uses her ''charitable foundation'' as a money-laundering operation designed to enrich herself under the guise of helping the needy; that she will gladly sell out her country, and everyone in it, in exchange for material riches and political dominion; the she is intent upon using the most irresponsible refugee and immigration policies imaginable to import countless millions of people from hostile, impoverished nations across the globe for one core purpose: to permanently transform the American population into one that will vote reliably Democrat from now until the end of time; that she fully intends to purge the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights; that she unequivocally plans to expand the disastrous, failing Obamacare debacle into an even more monstrous, government-run, single-payer healthcare system; that she favors soft-on-crime policies that have repeatedly been shown to cause violent crime rates to skyrocket; that she is perfectly willing to institutionalize massive, ubiquitous voter fraud because she believes that it will ensure additional power for her political party; that she views white Americans as a whole, as inherently, ''implicitly,''137 and ''irredeemably''138 racist, and therefore in constant need of an all-powerful government to restrain their bigoted impulses; that despite her professed aversion to racism in general, she is quite happy to ally herself with ''politically correct'' racists like Al Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter movement; and that she opposes the imposition of any restrictions whatsoever on abortion rights, or on the government's power to force taxpayers to fund abortions. In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never.
1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976803/Hillary-Clinton-used-unsecured-personal-email-account-four-years-Secretary-State-aides-decided-correspondence-hand-public-record.html; http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/hillary-cover-and-end-democracy; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2980005/What-Hillary-wants-Hillary-gets-former-Secretary-State-homebrew-email-server-set-amid-no-questions-asked-atmosphere.html
2Ibid.; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976803/Hillary-Clinton-used-unsecured-personal-email-account-four-years-Secretary-State-aides-decided-correspondence-hand-public-record.html; https://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/hillary-clinton-only-used-personal-email-while-secretary-of#.ju9JQN6YO; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997193/Hillary-s-email-gate-linked-whistle-blower-s-description-State-Department-boiler-room-operation-set-hide-documents-Benghazi.html
4 http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-anchor-visibly-deflated-when-networks-own-fact-checker-confirms-hillary-phones-destroyed; https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/03/fbi-files-clinton-aide-smashed-hillarys-old-phones-with-a-hammer/
15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/17/money-from-brunei-reached-clinton-foundation-coffers.html
16 http://nypost.com/2015/04/20/book-claims-foreign-cash-made-bill-and-hillary-filthy-rich/; http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/26/clintons-state-department-approved-weapons-deals-to-governments-who-made-donations-to-their-foundation-n2003917/print
21 http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-will-teach-iran-to-thwart-nuke-threats/; http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/17/7-devastating-facts-about-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal/; http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/17/7-devastating-facts-about-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal/
30 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=0; http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rand-paul-hillarys-benghazi-story-unraveling/?cat_orig=politics
34 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6175; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386
35 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2557; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7749; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7750
36 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556; http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Abedin_Affairs_with_Al_Saud_081312.pdf
37 https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/08/09/our-government-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-my-speech-in-washington/?singlepage=true; https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/27/huma-abedins-brotherhood-ties-are-not-just-a-family-affair/?print=1
39 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/02/08/nov-3-2011-letter-from-john-brennan-capitulating-to-muslim-complaints-against-fbi/; http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-special-report-u-s-government-purges-of-law-enforcement-training-material-deemed-offensive-to-muslims/; http://www.investigativeproject.org/3902/obama-cia-nominee-john-brennan-wrong-for-the-job
44 http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/does-death-isis-2-man-mean-we%E2%80%99re-winning; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/fivefold-increase-terrorism-fatalities-global-index; http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2015-global-terrorism-index-deaths-from-terrorism-increased-80-last-year-to-the-highest-level-ever-global-economic-cost-of-terrorism-reached-all-time-high-at-us529-billion-550766811.html
45 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/obama-adjusts-iraq-narrative-now-blames-george-w-b/; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/
61 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7457; http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/clinton-i-spent-years-urging-israel-to-apologize-to-turkey------.aspx?pageID=238&nID=88276&NewsCatID=358
74 http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fbi-director-admits-us-cant-vet-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/28/james-comey-warns-coming-terrorist-diaspora-democr/
82 http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp; http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing-sanctuary-cities/; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/number-of-sanctuary-cities-grows-to-340-thousands-/
83 http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp; http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/10/sanctuary-cities-ignore-ice-orders-to-free-9295-alien-criminals/
86 https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/; http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/most-americans-disagree-clinton-suing-gun-makers/
89 http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns; http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/10/duncan3/
99 http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/20/obamacare-imploding-clinton-pushes-for-complete-govt-take-over-of-health-care/; https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
100 Sally C. Pipes, The Truth About Obamacare (2010), Kindle Edition, Loc. 1731-33.
107 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0903753.html; http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
108 http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html; http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
111 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-says-republican-rivals-try-to-stop-young-and-minority-voters.html; http://www.nbcnews.com/video/now/52744828#52744828
115 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163; http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud
116 https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting; http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/10/30/boo-dead-voters-casting-ballots-from-the-grave-in-new-york/
123 http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-sings-al-sharptons-praises/; https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/updates/2016/04/13/hillary-clinton-delivers-remarks-at-national-action-network/
131 http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/16/tapes-reveal-hillary-clinton-discussing-her-defense-of-child-rapist-video/; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html;
Honest services fraud - Wikipedia
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:26
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in a 28-word sentence of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
The statute has been applied by federal prosecutors in cases of public corruption as well as in cases in which private individuals breached a fiduciary duty to another. In the former, the courts have been divided on the question of whether a state law violation is necessary for honest services fraud to have occurred. In the latter, the courts have taken differing approaches to determining whether a private individual has committed honest services fraud'--a test based on reasonably foreseeable economic harm and a test based on materiality. The statute, which has been a target of criticism, was given a narrow construction by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Skilling v. United States (2010). In order to avoid finding the statute to be unconstitutionally vague, the Court interpreted the statute to only cover "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who ha[s] not been deceived".
History and case lawSince at least 1941, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, and prior to 1987, the courts had interpreted the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes as criminalizing not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official. In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in McNally v. United States that the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes pertained strictly to schemes to defraud victims of tangible property, including money. In 1988, Congress enacted a new law that specifically criminalized schemes to defraud victims of "the intangible right of honest services."
Meaning of "honest services" in public corruptionHonest services fraud is generally more easily proven in the public sphere than in the private, because honest services fraud by public officials can include most unethical conduct, whereas honest services fraud by private individuals only includes some unethical conduct. Federal courts have generally recognized two main areas of public-sector honest service fraud: bribery (direct or indirect), where a public official was paid in some way for a particular decision or action, and failure to disclose a conflict of interest, resulting in personal gain.
Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violationsIn 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided in United States v. Brumley that in order for a state official to have committed honest services fraud, he or she must have violated the state statute defining the services which were owed to the employer (the state).
We find nothing to suggest that Congress was attempting in § 1346 to garner to the federal government the right to impose upon states a federal vision of appropriate services'--to establish, in other words, an ethical regime for state employees. Such a taking of power would sorely tax separation of powers and erode our federalist structure. Under the most natural reading of the statute, a federal prosecutor must prove that conduct of a state official breached a duty respecting the provision of services owed to the official's employer under state law. Stated directly, the official must act or fail to act contrary to the requirements of his job under state law. This means that if the official does all that is required under state law, alleging that the services were not otherwise done "honestly" does not charge a violation of the mail fraud statute.
However, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts have all held that the federal statute does not limit the meaning of "honest services" to violations of state law. As the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Weyhrauch in 2008:
Because laws governing official conduct differ from state to state, conditioning mail fraud convictions on state law means that conduct in one state might violate the mail fraud statute, whereas identical conduct in a neighboring state would not. Congress has given no indication it intended the criminality of official conduct under federal law to depend on geography.
The defendant in that case, Bruce Weyhrauch, is currently appealing that decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Intent to defraud and personal benefitIn 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit set a key limit on honest services fraud in United States v. Czubinski, ruling that a mere workplace violation does not constitute fraud without evidence of depriving the employer of property in some way. Richard Czubinski was employed in Massachusetts by the Internal Revenue Service when, in 1992, he violated IRS rules by carrying out several unauthorized searches of the IRS database and accessing files outside of the course of his official duties. In 1995, he was convicted of wire fraud (defrauding the IRS of property and the public of his honest services) and computer fraud. The appellate court reversed the honest services fraud conviction on the basis that Czubinski's actions did not amount to anything more than a workplace violation, warranting no more than a dismissal:
Czubinski was not bribed or otherwise influenced in any public decisionmaking capacity. Nor did he embezzle funds. He did not receive, nor can it be found that he intended to receive, any tangible benefit. ... The conclusive consideration is that the government simply did not prove that Czubinski deprived, or intended to deprive, the public or his employer of their right to his honest services. Although he clearly committed wrongdoing in searching confidential information, there is no suggestion that he failed to carry out his official tasks adequately, or intended to do so.
Czubinski's other convictions were also reversed.
Meaning of "honest services" in private fiduciary relationshipsAlthough the law is most often applied to corrupt public officials, several federal courts have upheld honest services fraud convictions of private individuals who breached a fiduciary duty to another, such as an employer.
Generally, the federal circuit courts have adhered to one of two approaches when dealing with honest services fraud cases. One, the "reasonably foreseeable economic harm" test, requires that the defendant intentionally breached his fiduciary duty and "foresaw or reasonably should have foreseen" that his actions could cause economic harm to his victim. The other, the "materiality" test, requires that the defendant possessed a fraudulent intent and made "any misrepresentation that has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing" the victim to change his behavior.
"Reasonably foreseeable economic harm" testIn 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Frost that private individuals could be also convicted of honest services fraud. Two professors at the University of Tennessee Space Institute, Walter Frost and Robert Eugene Turner, were also president and vice president, respectively, of FWG Associates, a private atmospheric science research firm. Frost and Turner gave FWG reports to two of their students, one a doctoral candidate employed by the Department of the Army and one a master's degree candidate employed by NASA, allowing them to plagiarize an overwhelming majority of the reports for their respective dissertations. They also allowed another doctoral candidate, employed by NASA, to submit a dissertation which was mostly written by one of their employees at FWG. Their aim was to secure federal contracts with the agencies employing these students. All three students received their degrees, facilitated by Frost and Turner. In addition to many other charges, Frost and Turner were convicted of three counts of mail fraud for defrauding the University of Tennessee of their honest services as employees. On appeal, Frost and Turner argued that § 1346 did not apply to them because they were not public servants. The court disagreed, ruling that "private individuals, such as Frost and Turner, may commit mail fraud by breaching a fiduciary duty and thereby depriving the person or entity to which the duty is owed of the intangible right to the honest services of that individual."
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the wire fraud conviction of Sun-Diamond Growers of California for defrauding its hired public relations firm of the honest services of one of its agents, James H. Lake, in order to curry favor with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy. The corporation's vice president for corporate affairs, Richard Douglas, had acted in the scheme in such a manner that potentially could have caused economic harm to the public relations firm (tarnishing its reputation by engaging Lake in illegal activity) '' he and Lake had illegally funneled contributions to a congressional candidate, Espy's brother. Sun-Diamond argued that those actions could not be criminal because there was no intent to do economic harm to the firm. However, the court ruled that an intent to do economic harm was not necessary to have committed wire fraud, affirming a pre-McNally decision in light of the 1988 statute:
In the private sector context, § 1346 poses special risks. Every material act of dishonesty by an employee deprives the employer of that worker's "honest services," yet not every such act is converted into a federal crime by the mere use of the mails or interstate phone system. Aware of the risk that federal criminal liability could metastasize, we held in Lemire that "not every breach of a fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud." ... Rather, "[t]here must be a failure to disclose something which in the knowledge or contemplation of the employee poses an independent business risk to the employer." ... Sun-Diamond appears to confuse the requirement of an intent to defraud...with a requirement of intent to cause economic harm.
In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit adopted a similar interpretation in United States v. deVegter. Michael deVegter, a financial advisor hired by Fulton County, Georgia, to craft a professional recommendation of the best underwriter for the county to hire. deVegter accepted a payment of about $42,000 from Richard Poirier in exchange for manipulating the report to influence Fulton County into hiring Poirier's investment banking firm for the underwriter job. deVegter and Poirier were both indicted for conspiracy and wire fraud, with the latter including charges under the honest services statute. The district court dismissed the honest services charges for lack of evidence before the trial began; the government appealed. The court agreed with the government that there was sufficient evidence alleged in the indictment for the defendants to be charged with honest services fraud, because the allegations showed a breach of fiduciary duty and an intent to defraud in such a manner that "reasonably foreseeable economic harm to Fulton County" was a consequence of the scheme.
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized that there were two different tests that other circuit courts had generally used to determine whether honest services fraud had been committed; in United States v. Vinyard, it concluded that the "reasonably foreseeable economic harm" test was superior (because it was based on employee intent and not employer response) and applied that test to the case at hand. The defendant in the case, Michael Vinyard, had been convicted in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina of fourteen counts of mail fraud and twelve counts of money laundering. His brother, James Vinyard, was an employee of the Sunoco Products Corporation who was charged with finding an independent broker to research recycled resins for their manufacture of plastic bags. The brothers instead created their own brokerage, "Charles Stewart Enterprises," incorporated in the state of Iowa, and misrepresented it to Sunoco as an legitimate, independent firm that was supplying recycled resins at the lowest possible price. They purchased recycled resins from plastic vendors and, marking up the price, sold them to Sunoco, which eventually yielded $2.8 million in profits. The brothers funneled these profits from CSE to themselves through another entity in order to conceal their involvement with CSE on their tax returns. When the brothers were eventually indicted for mail fraud and money laundering, James Vinyard pleaded guilty and testified against his brother. Michael Vinyard appealed, arguing that his conviction of honest services fraud (defrauding Sunoco of the honest services of his brother, their employee) was wrongful because he did not cause harm nor did he intend to cause economic harm to the victim, Sunoco. Upholding his conviction, the court rejected this argument:
The reasonably foreseeable harm test is met whenever, at the time of the fraud scheme, the employee could foresee that the scheme potentially might be detrimental to the employer's economic well-being. Furthermore, the concept of "economic risk" embraces the idea of risk to future opportunities for savings or profit; the focus on the employer's wellbeing encompasses both the long-term and the short-term health of the business. Whether the risk materializes or not is irrelevant; the point is that the employee has no right to endanger the employer's financial health or jeopardize the employer's long-term prospects through self-dealing. Therefore, so long as the employee could have reasonably foreseen the risk to which he was exposing the employer, the requirements of § 1346 will have been met.
In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit treated the issue of whether private defendants could be prosecuted under § 1346 as settled law, citing the numerous other circuits which had affirmed the practice. In the case United States v. Williams, the defendant, John Anthony Williams, was an Oregon insurance salesman who had sold several annuities to an elderly rancher named Loyd Stubbs. When Stubbs liquidated his annuities, Williams deposited the resulting funds in a joint bank account he had opened in his and Stubbs' names. Williams proceeded to make massive cash withdrawals from the account, depositing the money in his own personal account and spending much of it; he also wired money to personal bank accounts he had in Belize and Louisiana. Williams was convicted of four counts of wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, three counts of money laundering, and one count of foreign transportation of stolen money; the fraud charges stemmed from schemes to defraud Stubbs of money and of Williams' honest services as his financial advisor. On appeal, Williams argued that § 1346 did not apply to private commerce. The court disagreed, and, citing previous case law, ruled that within a fiduciary relationship the statute applied.
"Materiality" testIn 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit laid out the "materiality" test in its decision in United States v. Gray. Kevin Gray, Gary Thomas, and Troy Drummond were three members of the men's basketball coaching staff at Baylor University in Texas. These coaches helped five players, recruited from two-year colleges, to obtain the credits required for eligibility and possibly scholarships by providing these students with written course work or answers to correspondence exams, which were then sent to the sponsoring schools as the students' work. They were convicted of conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud; the fraud charges stemmed from schemes to deprive Baylor University of both property (in the form of scholarships) and the coaches' honest services as Baylor employees. The court upheld the convictions, affirming the honest services fraud convictions on the basis that the coaches made "material" misrepresentations:
A breach of fiduciary duty can constitute illegal fraud...only when there is some detriment to the employer. ... The detriment can be a deprivation of an employee's faithful and honest services if a violation of the employee's duty to disclose material information is involved. ... Materiality exists whenever "an employee has reason to believe the information would lead a reasonable employer to change its business conduct." ... The information withheld, i.e. the "coaches' cheating scheme", was material because Baylor did not get the quality student it expected. Further, appellants failure to disclose the scheme to Baylor was material as Baylor might have been able to recruit other qualified, eligible students to play basketball. Instead, once the scheme was suspected, Baylor was forced to institute a costly investigation and the players under suspicion were withheld from competition. It is quite reasonable to believe that Baylor would have changed its business conduct had it known of the "cheating scheme."
In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit also applied the "materiality" test in its decision in United States v. Cochran. Robert M. Cochran was a bond underwriter in Oklahoma who was convicted of five counts of wire fraud, two counts of money laundering, and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property. Three of wire fraud counts for which Cochran was convicted were honest services fraud. Cochran's firm, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, served as managing underwriter when the SSM Healthcare System, a non-profit corporation operating several hospitals and nursing homes, issued more than $265 million of tax-exempt bonds; Sakura Global Capital bid $400,000 to provide SSM with a forward supply contract. However, SGC subsequently made a secret payment of $100,000 to Cochran's firm over the course of three wire transmissions; thus, Cochran supposedly deprived SSM and its bondholders of his honest services. The appellate court reversed his conviction, deciding that the government did not provide sufficient evidence that Cochran had actually defrauded SSM or its bondholders of his honest services, applying the "materiality" test:
Though Stifel misrepresented that SGC would not pay an additional fee to Stifel for the forward supply contract, this information resulted in no actual or potential harm to SSM. ... No evidence independent of the alleged scheme suggests in any way that Mr. Cochran sought to harm SSM or its bondholders. Moreover, we know not from this record how SSM would have changed its conduct had the disclosure been made.
In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit diverged from the D.C. Circuit's Sun-Diamond ruling in its decision in United States v. Pennington. Donald B. Pennington was the president of Harvest Foods, a grocery store chain in eastern Arkansas, when that company contracted with a food broker and a consultant, John Oldner, to negotiate deals between it and its suppliers. The broker and consultant both funneled a portion of their money from Harvest Foods and its supplier to Pennington '' through a sham corporation, Capitol City Marketing '' as kickbacks. Pennington was convicted of money laundering and mail fraud; in his appeal he contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the government had failed to show that he had an intent to defraud Harvest Foods of his honest services as its president. The court upheld the conviction, stating that there was sufficient evidence that his actions were a breach of his duty as a fiduciary of Harvest Foods to disclose his material interest in their contracts with Oldner and the broker. However, the court also went further and required (and found) intent to economically harm:
Pennington and Oldner correctly assert that, when dealing with business transactions in the private sector, a mere breach of fiduciary or employee duty may not be sufficient to deprive a client or corporation of "honest services" for purposes of § 1346'--to be guilty of mail fraud, defendants must also cause or intend to cause actual harm or injury, and in most business contexts, that means financial or economic harm. ... However, proof of intent to harm may be inferred from the willful non-disclosure by a fiduciary, such as a corporate officer, of material information he has a duty to disclose.
In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, like the Fourth Circuit in Vinyard, noted the existence of the two tests, but unlike the Fourth Circuit, it opted to use the "materiality" test (describing it as "arising out of fundamental principles of the law of fraud" and critiquing the alternative as "designed simply to limit the scope" of the law). It applied this test to the case at hand, United States v. Rybicki. The defendants were two personal injury lawyers, Thomas Rybicki and Fredric Grae, in the state of New York; both were convicted of twenty counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy. The fraud charges pertained to a scheme to make illegal payments to insurance claims adjusters with the intent of inducing the adjusters to expedite the settlement of certain claims; Rybicki and Grae made such payments in at least twenty cases. As the acceptance of such payments by the adjusters was against the insurance companies' policies, Rybicki and Grae had defrauded those insurance companies of the honest services of their employees. Such was the basis for the successful fraud prosecution. The court affirmed the conviction, determining that all of the necessary elements for the crime of honest services fraud to have occurred were present, including material misrepresentation. The court defined the crime thus:
The phrase "scheme or artifice [to defraud] by depriv[ing] another of the intangible right of honest services," in the private sector context, means a scheme or artifice to use the mails or wires to enable an officer or employee of a private entity (or a person in a relationship that gives rise to a duty of loyalty comparable to that owed by employees to employers) purporting to act for and in the interests of his or her employer (or of the other person to whom the duty of loyalty is owed) secretly to act in his or her or the defendant's own interests instead, accompanied by a material misrepresentation made or omission of information disclosed to the employer or other person.
Usage and criticismThe statute grants jurisdiction to the federal government to prosecute local, state and federal officials. It is frequently used to fight public corruption because it is easier to prove than bribery or extortion. The term "honest services" is broad and open to jury interpretation, according to several legal experts. Prosecutions under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) frequently use violations of the honest services statute, as mail and wire fraud are predicate acts of racketeering; therefore, two mailings or wire transmissions in the execution of honest services fraud can form "a pattern of racketeering activity."
Prosecutions for honest services fraud that do not involve public corruption generally involve corporate crime, although the line between torts and crimes in such cases is considered murky and unclear.
The law is reportedly a favorite of federal prosecutors because the language of statute is vague enough to be applied to corrupt political officials' unethical or criminal activities when they do not fall into a specific category, such as bribery or extortion. For similar reasons, defense attorneys dislike the law, viewing it as a poorly defined law that can be used by prosecutors to convert any kind of unethical behavior into a federal crime.
Nevertheless, prosecutors must still prove all the elements of mail fraud or wire fraud in a case regarding a scheme to defraud of honest services.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has criticized the statute, stating that the clause was so poorly defined that it could be the basis for prosecuting "a mayor for using the prestige of his office to get a table at a restaurant without a reservation."
In The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, investigative journalist Gary S. Chafetz argued that honest-services fraud is so vague as to be unconstitutional, and that prosecutors abused it as a tool to increase their conviction rates. Bennett L. Gershmann, a professor at Pace University Law School, similarly has contended that the law "is not only subject to abuse...but has been abused." The case of former Alabama GovernorDon Siegelman is often cited as an example of possible prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of the honest services law.
Many interest groups oppose the usage of the honest services law, including the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce and Washington Legal Foundation, as well as the more liberal National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. One notable proponent of the law is the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Recent notable prosecutionsSeveral notable figures have been charged with or convicted of honest services fraud. Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in 2006 to honest services fraud in addition to conspiracy and tax evasion; he was convicted in 2008 of further charges of honest services fraud in addition to further charges of conspiracy and tax evasion. Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to securities fraud. Former Illinois governor George Ryan was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to racketeering, tax fraud, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal agents. Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to conspiracy, bribery, and obstruction of justice.Duke Cunningham, a former Congressman from California, was convicted of corruption charges including honest services fraud.Bob Ney, a former congressman from Ohio, was convicted of corruption charges including honest services fraud. Newspaper magnate Conrad Black was convicted in 2007 of honest services fraud, in addition to obstruction of justice. Former Alaskastate legislatorBruce Weyhrauch was convicted in 2007 of honest services fraud in addition to bribery and extortion. Former New YorkSenate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted in 2009 on two counts of honest services fraud.Mary McCarty, a former Palm Beach County Commissioner, is currently serving a federal prison sentence for honest services fraud.New Jersey political boss Joe Ferriero was convicted in 2009 of conspiracy and two counts of mail fraud. Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was indicted in 2009 for allegedly conspiring to commit honest services fraud, as well as for allegedly soliciting bribes. Former Alabama state legislator Sue Schmitz was convicted in 2009 of three counts of mail fraud and four counts of fraud involving a program receiving federal funds. Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan originally pleaded guilty to honest services fraud and conspiracy in the Kids for cash scandal. The pleas were later withdrawn. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and wife Maureen were convicted of multiple counts, including conspiring to defraud the public and honest services violations in September 2014.
Supreme Court casesIn its 2009-2010 term, there were three appeals against the statute at the United States Supreme Court, all challenging its constitutionality. All three appellants were convicted of honest services fraud in 2006 or 2007.
Weyhrauch v. United States, by former Alaska state legislator Bruce Weyhrauch, deals with whether a public official can be charged with honest services fraud without violating his duty under state law.
Black v. United States, by newspaper magnate Conrad Black, deals with whether there must be proof that the defendant knew his actions would cause economic harm to the company.
Skilling v. United States, by former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, deals with whether the honest services statute requires proof of personal gain. He is also contending that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unfair.
In December 2009, the Associated Press reported that the Justices of the Court "seemed to be in broad agreement that the law is vague and has been used to make a crime out of mistakes, minor transgressions and mere ethical violations." Both liberal and conservative justices have criticized the law.Richard Thornburgh, a former United States Attorney General, has remarked that he expects the court to issue "something fairly sweeping...without doing violence to proper law enforcement."
On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the cases of Black and Skilling that the law against "honest services" fraud is too vague to constitute a crime unless a bribe or kickback was involved.
References^ abcValerie D. Nixon (June 13, 2006). "Our Intangible Right To 'Honest Services' by Public Officials". North Country Gazette. ^18 U.S.C. § 1346^Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896^ abcNinth Circuit Joins Other Circuits in Ruling that Honest Services Fraud Conviction of a Public Official Does Not Require a Violation of State Law, Martindale.com^McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court of the United States 1987).^ abcRazzano, Frank C.; Jones, Kristin H. (2009). "Prosecution of Private Corporate Conduct: The Uncertainty Surrounding Honest Services Fraud". Business Law Today. 18 (3). ^United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 1997).^United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2008).^ abCole, Eric; Sandra Ring (2006). Insider Threat: Protecting the Enterprise from Sabotage, Spying, and Theft. Rockland, Massachusetts: Syngress Publishing, Inc. ISBN 1-59749-048-2. Retrieved 5 April 2010. ^United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 1997).^ abUnited States v. Vinyard, 266 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2001).^United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 1997).^United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 138 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir. 1998).^United States v. deVegter, 198 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999).^United States v. John Anthony Williams, 441 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2006).^United States v. Gray, 96 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996).^United States v. Cochran, 109 F.3d 660 (10th Cir. 1997).^United States v. Pennington, 168 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 1999).^United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003).^ abcdeKelly Thornton (January 12, 2006). "Vagueness of statute on corruption stirs dispute". San Diego Union-Tribune. ^Mike Robinson (September 12, 2009). "Honest-Services Fraud: Law Used To Indict Blagojevich Challenged As Vague". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2009. ^Sorich v. United States, 555 U.S. 1204, 1205 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).^Chafetz, Gary S. (2008). The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Jack Abramoff. Martin & Lawrence Press. ISBN 0-9773898-8-X. ^ abcdeJohn Schwartz (7 December 2009). "Justices to Weigh Honest-Services Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 December 2009. ^Ashby Jones (7 December 2009). "Twofer Tuesday: Pregaming the Honest-Services Arguments". WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 December 2009. ^"CREW Files Amicus Brief in Black v. United States". CitizensforEthics.org. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 17 September 2009. Retrieved 20 December 2009. ^ abcdMorgan, Lucy (22 January 2009). "Fighting corruption with the 'honest services' doctrine". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 4 April 2010. ^Matt O'Connor (September 8, 2006). "Ryan judge explains why she dismissed 2 charges". Chicago Tribune. ^"Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy Convicted of Bribery, Conspiracy and Fraud" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. 29 June 2006. Retrieved 2010-04-04. ^Clark, Andrew (6 December 2009). "Conrad Black appeals 'honest services fraud' conviction". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 April 2010. ^Bolstad, Erika (9 December 2009). "Weyhrauch lawyers optimistic after high court hearing". Anchorage Daily News. Archived from the original on August 4, 2010. Retrieved 4 April 2010. ^Confessore, Nicholas; Danny Hakim (7 December 2009). "Joseph L. Bruno, Former Senate Leader, Guilty of Corruption". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 April 2010. ^"Mary McCarty moved to permanent prison in Texas". CBS 12 News. 13 July 2009. Retrieved 4 April 2010. ^"Former Bergen County political boss Ferriero found guilty in corruption case". The Star-Ledger. 22 October 2009. Retrieved 5 April 2010. ^"Superseding Indictment (U.S. v. Blagojevich, et al.)". FindLaw. 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2009-04-04. ^The Absentee School Teacher http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004453Harper's Magazine^Faulk, Kent (February 25, 2009). "Sue Schmitz was convicted of federal fraud charges and removed as Alabama representative". The Birmingham News. Retrieved 5 April 2010. ^ abRobert Barnes (2009-10-14). "Supreme Court to Review Ex-Enron CEO's Conviction". The Washington Post. ^"Conrad Black applies for bail". Globe and Mail. May 28, 2009. ^Mark Sherman (October 13, 2009). "Supreme Court will hear appeal of Enron's Skilling". Associated Press. ^ abMark Sherman (December 8, 2009). "Supreme Court skeptical of federal anti-fraud law used in high-profile prosecutions". Associated Press. ^Chicago Tribune June 24, 2010, Supreme Court limits use of fraud law, siding with ex-Enron CEO Skilling