Americans Held to a Different Standard Than Our Elected Officials

DoubleStandardsby Leigh Bravo3/28/15
What would happen to any American citizen if their computer servers were subpoenaed and they responded by destroying them?  Do you think jail time would be a potential outcome?  Obviously, Hillary Clinton believes she lives by a different “rule of law” than the average American.  These are the very people who decide what the rule of law will be and obviously, who will be required to live by them.  As we have seen year after year, and term after term, our law makers and our president live by a completely different set of rules than the American citizens.

The Benghazi committee headed by Senator Trey Gowdy, released this statement:

“After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.”

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department. “‘

In July of 1992, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put into law, to address corporate responsibility and accountability, and also addressed destruction of evidence.

“With the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which President Bush labeled as “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” and the increased commitment of prosecutors to stamp out corporate fraud, today’s company executives have more legal requirements and challenges to meet than they have ever faced in the past. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 takes aim at individuals who obstruct justice by destroying or altering documents in an attempt to thwart criminal and other government investigations or inquiries.”

The institution of this law allows for more strict enforcement and punishment of individuals who destroy evidence during an investigation or criminal case, and punishes those who destroy evidence under even the “contemplation” of an investigation.

“The new provisions reach those who destroy documents merely “in contemplation” of an investigation or “any matter” within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Moreover, destruction of documents under § 1519 contains a maximum sentence of twenty years, at least twice what could be attained under the previous statutory scheme.”

Based on this law, the average American citizen can be sentenced to prison for destroying evidence even when the government is merely thinking about investigating them or their company. Martha Stewart was sent to jail under the provisions of this law. So it appears as though Hillary Clinton has broken the law and should be held accountable. This means jail time.  But will she be punished as any other American would be?  Only time will tell if the powers at be will demand she follow the rule of law or if, once again, the Clintons and everyone else on the Hill will be held under different  standards than the rest of us.

Although Hillary Clinton claimed she refused to use her government server because she wanted to avoid   carrying two different phones,  just weeks before in an interview, she admitted to having an iPhone, a blackberry and a iPad.

Clinton said, during her press conference at the UN,

“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”

Yet it was discovered that “Hillary Clinton emailed with her top advisers at the State Department about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya on their own personal emails,” as reported by The New York Times.

During her press conference at the UN, Clinton said,

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. “

When asked about emails, Bill Clinton stated he only sent two emails his entire time in office, one of them going to John Glenn in 1998 and the other went to U.S. troops serving in the Adriatic. He said he still does not use email today.

Questions still remain regarding the legality of Hillary Clinton’s deletion of her server.  Americans have to ask themselves if this is the person that should be running for president of the United States? We have certainly seen the negative results of a “lack of transparency” within the Obama administration.

The American people are owed the truth and should have access to the communications from and between our elected officials. When we begin to allow the laws to be manipulated by those in power, while we are held to task, we certainly have graduated from the “elected over the electorate to the ruling over the ruled”- Edward Snowden.


Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet.

 • (940 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Americans Held to a Different Standard Than Our Elected Officials

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The behavior of Slick Hilly and her minions is the behavior one would expect of the ruling class of an aristocratic despotism. Under such a system, the rulers impose their laws on their subjects without having to obey them themselves. Naturally, this is the ideal form of government for liberal aristos.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Yes, that is exactly what it is, Tim. More and more the Washington elite represents a permanent ruling class and are not servants of the people. The Democratic Party is now what I call The Party of the State, wholly totalitarian, and in consequence the worst elements (Barry and Hillary) are now rising to the top. They don’t see themselves as bound by the same laws as we or indeed by any laws at all. Remember the words of Saddam Hussein:

      “Law is two lines above my signature.”

      That is the ideal of Barry Hussein as well.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One reason for the corruption of the Demagogues aka IngSoc aka the Plunderbund is that their voters seem to want it their way. The last Democratic presidential candidate who wasn’t a sociopath and a pathological liar was Michael Dukakis. The results of that race probably indicate the reason for their preference.

  2. Rosalys says:

    Rule of law is fast becoming a thing of the past. I’ll never believe that what Hillary did was done bumblingly or innocently. Whether she will be held accountable is anybody’s guess.

    I thought that what ever gets sent from a computer exists forever in cyberspace. Can’t those files be retrieved anyway?

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      If they scrubbed that server clean, Rosalys (and if there’s one thing the Clinton gang is good at, it’s destroying evidence), then no, there’s no way to retrieve the emails from it. However, the recipients may still have copies on their servers, or copies retained in some other fashion (as in fact required by law if they’re employees of the State Department). But you can see the difficulties in searching the emails of a hundred people instead of just one – which is what Hillary and her gang intended.

      Oh, and it’s of course possible that the NSA has copies, but we’ll never get them while Obama is in office.

      It appears to me Hillary did indeed violate the law, and she will get away with it unless we get a Republican President with guts enough to prosecute her. That leaves out Jeb Bush, for example, as he once presented Hillary with an award, believe it or not.

    • David Ray says:

      ” . . . was done bumblingly or innocently”

      That struck a memory chord.
      I remember when Sandy Berger destroyed some top secret memos during the 9/11 Commission to spare the Clintons any shame. (Guess “Sir Edmund” Hillary didn’t have to do it herself that time.)

      Hillary euphemized that felony by saying how Sandy was a lovable fuddy duddy always misplacing keys and things. (Paraphrasing. Couldn’t find the quote.)

  3. David Ray says:

    Hell . . . If Lois Lerner can “accidentally” have her servers crash and still retire with a serious 6 figure pension, then Hillary thinks she can do it also.

    (I’m not sure if liberals will be slavishly damning Nixon for his use of the IRS as a political weapon as much these days, but then again . . . )

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Glenn Reynolds has an article in USA Today that was linked by Hot Air on the matter of regulatory law, and the fact that it’s virtually impossible to avoid breaking it (or to know whether or not you are). He notes that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” remains true even for this — except for politicians, of course, who are allowed to plead their presumed (usually falsely) good intentions. The link is:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/

  5. David says:

    Based upon this, with Democrat leaders at the front and followed closely by their Republican counterparts, they represent the greatest threat to freedom in the US today.

    • Leigh says:

      I think the saddest part is that most Americans don’t care. It is a lost cause when people are okay with the continued election of crooks and liars. Then they are surprised when the proverbial SHIT hits the fan. They want to bitch, but refuse to do anything about it. If we continue to have uneducated and uninformed voters hitting the election booths we are doomed! You can’t fix Stupid!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Back around 1980, when I still read Doonesbury, there was a sequence in which someone looked into why the voters of Daniel Flood’s district were willing to re-elect him despite his criminal behavior. The conclusion was that the voters, in essence, were on the take and therefore saw his corruption as merely being his share of the take.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *