ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Clinton e-mails: What Happened Here?

Updated on April 14, 2016

Can Hillary Clinton be Trusted?

Hillary Clinton is currently running for the highest office in the land -- the United States Presidency. As she does, she is quick to point out so-called attacks made by Bernie Sanders that are not attacks; quick to point out so-called negative ads made by Bernie Sanders that are not negative ads... all the while, this is a woman that has been in the center of more controversies than most mob bosses. So the question remains: can Hillary Clinton be trusted with anything?

Hillary Clinton -- email issues?
Hillary Clinton -- email issues? | Source

Scandal Du Jour

The Bill-and-Hillary Clinton political powerhouse is no stranger to scandal. The dozens of scandals that are purely Bill Clinton are not (directly) relevant to the discussion; I will leave those out of this discussion. But the fact that Hillary Clinton has been the primary party to many scandals (the media names for these scandals almost always have the word 'gate' in them; my apologies)...

  • 1978 – 1998 Whitewater — As a partner in a shady real-estate firm, Hillary Clinton allegedly commit fraud. Although neither she nor her husband were charged and jailed for fraud, her senior partners at Whitewater (James and Susan McDougal), Governor Clinton's successor (Governor Jim Tucker), and even the municipal judges who worked with the firm (David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh) all were. Somehow, the Clintons were seen as completely innocent in their company's dealings.
  • 1993 Travelgate — Hillary Clinton (indirectly) fired seven employees of the United States Travel Office; those people were then replaced with friends from Arkansas. Records were lost or destroyed or misfiled. The NYT describes the environment at the White House as one in which fear dictated nobody dare question Mrs. Clinton.
  • 1993 The Man Who Knew Too Much — Hillary Clinton's long time friend, Vince Foster commit suicide. He was central to the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals. The circumstances of his suicide are highly suspect.
  • 1994 Commodities Trading Savant — for only $1000 (presumably, since this is all that was in her bank account at the time), Mrs. Clinton managed to purchase 10 cattle-futures contracts (which, at the time, cost $12,000 each). In less than one day, her profits were over $6,000. After 10 months, she had made profits totaling more than $100,000. Robert L. Bone, the man who allowed those trades to go through, was suspended for three years and had to pay the largest fine in exchange history in relation to the Clinton trades. She, however, was deemed involved with the illegality of the trades and cited research through the Wall Street Journal for her amazing trade results.
  • 1996 Chinagate — Hillary Clinton sold seats on Department Trade missions to China. This amid charges that the White House was accepting bribes from China. This one was dropped in the media when the Monica Lewenski story broke.
  • 1996 The Drug Dealer Donor — Jorge Cobrera, a convicted Miami cocaine trafficker, was invited to the White House and was allowed to meet with President and Mrs. Clinton without Secret Service (or anyone else) present at the meeting. The official explanation was that it was out of respect for the drug dealer's rather large campaign contributions.
  • 2001 Lootergate — When they were leaving the White House, Hilalry Clinton ordered several pieces of furniture to be removed from the White House and delivered to her new home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. With some presure place on her, she ordered the furniture returned.
  • 2008 The Ponzi / Pyramid Presidential Donor — Norman Yung Yuen Hso, a man convicted of running Ponzi and pyramid schemes, was found to have given an undisclosed amount as a donation to Hillary's Presidential campaign. His final conviction (after this scandal broke) sentencing included these words: "[he was] manipulating the political process in a way that strikes at the very core of our democracy."
  • 2013 Benghazi — I have nothing to add to this. This word speaks for itself.
  • etc., etc., and so on.

$1K to $100K in 10 months...
$1K to $100K in 10 months... | Source

The Clinton Witch-Hunt Du Jour

The list above represents a smattering — a tiny sample set — of the controversies, scandals, and shady dealings involving Mrs. Clinton. The question that needs to be asked is this: how many of the scandals involving Mrs. Clinton are legitimate complaints, and how many are illegitimate complaints — just so much smoke with no fire?

The answer is that I have no freaking idea. And neither does anyone else not named Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton

The difference between me and a whole slew of other blogs, reports, and Hub Pages out there is that I do not pretend to know. I do know, for example, that the right-wing of the Republican Party has been trying to pin something (be that insider trading, Benghazi, or leaked secrets from a private e-mail server) on Hillary Clinton for years. Up to this point, they have found absolutely nothing that can prove anything illegal.

  • Whitewater? Lots of things seem off here. Nothing that anyone can get to stick to the Clintons.
  • Private Meetings with Cocaine Traffickers? This happened. It seems unusual that the meeting took place with someone like this, with no witnesses or even Presidential protection. But is it illegal? Did something illegal take place prior to, within, or as a result of this meeting? No idea.
  • Chinagate? Bribery at the White House? Sure. I firmly believe that this took place. But the question (as it relates to this article) is 'did Hillary do anything illegal?' It does not appear that they have found anything that firmly states that she did.
  • Was something done that was criminal when it comes to Benghazi? Maybe. Maybe not. But thus far, nothing sticks.

Did Hillary Clinton do anything illegal in any of these scandals? I cannot say for sure. I can say this:

If nobody can find a shred of evidence that proves Hillary Clinton did something illegal when she paid 0.83% of the cost for ten cattle futures — her first ever foray into commodities trading — and further more when she turned a profit of 9900% in less than one year... I think it is safe to say that nobody is going to find anything that will stick to her when it comes to any of the scandals she is associated with.

e-Mail Poll!

Smoke or Fire?

See results

The Latest: e-mail Scandal

Do a search for "clinton email" (with the quotes, to ensure that you are not getting irrelevant results) on Google. As of the initial writing of this hub, that search turned up some 2,000,000 results. Some 15% of those results were from the last few hours. This is insanity. Granted, as of today (as I update this hub on 14 April 2016), the number of results has dropped to about a half-million, but this is not going to go away anytime soon.

Did Hillary Clinton do anything illegal when it came to using a private e-mail address and server? By the timing of the law that prohibited such things, no. The law that would prevent such things went into effect after she left office.

Did Hillary Clinton do anything against policy when it came to using a private e-mail address and server? Yes. Even memoranda send by her suggests she was aware of the policy and directed those that worked for her to use government e-mail.

Is this a meaningful investigation or a witch-hunt? That appears to depend upon which side of the political fence you stand. In the end, I think most current investigations into Mrs. Clinton are conducted for a two-fold purpose:

  1. Republicans are afraid of her — as the presumptive nominee for President, the Republican Party (especially the far right elements of it) want to smear Mrs. Clinton any way they can. Each time an opportunity like this one presents itself... they will leap on it.
  2. Given her history, some will take what-ever they can get — in the end it was the IRS that got Al Capone. After a lengthy investigation, they could get nothing on the murderous gangster... but tax law managed to stick and lock the man up. I think some people look at Hillary and they see someone that can do just about anything. And if nothing else works, they will take anything they can get that will work.

Can She be Trusted?

I do not believe that Hillary Clinton can be trusted. I think she would sink a knife into her best-friend's back if she thought it would give her a two-point bump in some poll somewhere. And I believe that if she were caught with the knife in her hand, she would spin the situation to the point to where the best friend's family would owe her money for Defamation of Character.

That said: I will vote for her long before I will vote for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. She may be a dishonest snake-in-the-grass, but she is far less dangerous to the future of my beloved nation that either of those two idiots.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 2 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      Who was in charge of policy at the State Department while she was Secretary of State?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      You wrote "Did Hillary Clinton do anything illegal when it came to using a private e-mail address and server? By the timing of the law that prohibited such things, no. The law that would prevent such things went into effect after she left office."

      Wrong! I find it odd that this was addressed in the video clip I already gave you on your other hub page which evidently you chose to not even look at or just ignored the fact that she had to commit a felony in this hub page. This explains how she is guilty of a felony. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4108284670001/did-hilla...

      The form -- OF109 -- certifies that the person who signs it has turned over all "classified or administratively controlled" materials, as well as all "unclassified documents and papers" relating to official government business.

      The state department has refused to say whether she signed that statement but it is required of everyone who leaves the government, no exceptions. If she signed it, there's no question she broke the law.

      Making a false statement in this context, knowingly and willfully -- which I can't imagine anything more knowing and willful than knowing you have 55,000 records sitting in your home -- if you do that, it is a felony. PERIOD

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I saw the video. I did not ignore you. I disagree with the logic used. Simple as that, sir.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      So you disagree with Richard Grenell a long term state department employee who served as spokesman for four US ambassadors to the UN? Instead of even commenting on this, which happens now to be the most reported on aspect of her email escapade because it is a felony, you choose to ignore this vital information when describing this fiasco to your hub readers?

      That's interesting, how long did you work at the state department, sir?

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      At the state department? Never. In Naval Intelligence? Four years.

      You?

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      By the way: I write a hub in which I point out that this woman is the subject of many, many instances of underhanded dealings, shady practices, and felonious crimes. But because I happen to disagree with you (and the conclusions of a video you posted), why are you treating me like I am some kind of Clinton apologist?

    • profile image

      Stargrrl 2 years ago

      This was a very interesting hub. I wonder about the Clintons. I hear really good things about them from Democrats and I hear terrible things from Republicans. I wonder if she will be the first female president.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      @KDLage Last I heard Clinton headed the State department, not Naval Intelligence, but that reply goes along with the rest of the misinformation you peddle.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      When did I claim Mrs. Clinton headed Naval Intelligence? I was asked a question, and I answered it. It would seem you peddle misinformation. All I have peddled is my opinion.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      I didn't ask you anything about naval intelligence and it is irrelevant to anything discussed here. I really don't care about your naval.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I understand. But it is just about as relevant as asking about my experience in the State department.

      How long did you work for the Clintons in Arkansas?

      See? I can ask irrelevant questions, too.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      DUH. Don't you even look at what is posted in comments? My question about working for the state department was relevant because in that video the guy claiming Hiliary was guilty of a felony if she signed that document WORKED FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT SO HE WOULD KNOW. Whether you were a dishwasher or naval intelligence has nothing to do with anything.

      You put forth misinformation when you say Hiliary did nothing illegal when it came to using a private e-mail address and server.

      The former Secretary of State told the country she broke no rules, and disclosed all work-related emails. Because of this the State department is being sued for not providing information under FFOIA requests by the AP going back 5 years. Because Clinton’s e-mails were not part of official State Department records until recently, many of them would not have been handed over in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, subpoenas, or other document searches in recent years. in the meantime the STATE department and Hiliary continue to stonewall everyone.

      She broke the law by concealing government federal law says when you work for the government you can not keep federal documents form the government,exactly what she did, a felony punishable by 3 years in jail and permanent disqualification from holding office in the federal government of the united states. If she had classified secrets on that email server and it is inconceivable that she didn't, she also broke the law. She also broke the law if she said she returned all the documents when she hadn't, another felony, though the state department can't say whether or not she signed that form because they can't find it. By law when you work for the government the government owns your records and you ask the government for your personal records back. She did the opposite,she owned all the government's records, and she chose which ones to give the government and deleted the rest. Only she knows what she deleted, the government had no say in it, so she concealed documents form the government and destroyed government documents, felonies. All the government has to do is find emails to other officials that came from her server that contained government business that aren't in what she handed over and they have proof even without her turning over her server. But all her aides evidently also used private emails so they too were breaking the laws if the government doesn't have these emails...we are dealing with a conniving evil liar in Hiliary and all her associates who are also covering this up because they know the truth and are probably guilty of the same things she is.

      So now is it clear your "opinion", Hiliary did nothing illegal, is misinformation? I'd think a naval intelligence officer would know all this, but then maybe you were just work in data entry and never had to use your mind.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Yes, some guy who worked in the State department said she broke the law. How long as he been a lawyer? How long has he practiced law in this area?

      Some thousand or more people have weighed in on this. Some say she broke the law. Others say she violated policy. Others say she skirted the edges.

      Best I can tell -- by reading up on this stuff and looking into it and avoiding people who have an axe to grind (such as you, sir), I can say that -- to the best of my non-lawyer-abilities -- the law they are claiming she broke was not the law when she allegedly broke it.

      Nothing you have stated changes this.

      If she broke the law (which, again, best I can tell, she did not), then so did every single Secretary of State since the FOIA was passed. But this is not the case, now is it?

      I am done arguing with you. You disagree with my statements here. I have never claimed insider information. You do not appear to have any yourself. I am not a lawyer. You do not appear to be one either. I did not work at the state department. You do not appear to have worked their either.

      Some guy who works for the State Department says she broke the law. Some 30 others online and in the news recently say she did not.

      This is not black-and-white, cut-and-dry, or obvious.

      Deal with it, man.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 2 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      If I recall correctly, there is a clause in the Constitution that stops people from being accountable for breaking a law before it became a law. It is oddly stated for modern English, so, does anyone happen to recall the article and section?

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I think you are discussing ex post facto. Congress canot pass ex post facto laws due to clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. This is a list of limitations on Congress. The relevant line is:

      "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

      A Bill of Attainder is a bill passed into law which declares a person or group guilty of a crime, and then arrests them without trial.

      An ex post facto law is one that declares something as illegal and then declares that this is retroactive to an earlier date such that someone can be charged for breaking that law before it was a law.

      Yep. It's in there.

    Click to Rate This Article