Icheoku is emphatic that sometimes influence does not have to be overt or express; or necessarily verbally communicated or exerted. It could be covert, subliminally communicated and signaled through actions, body language, suggestions, comments or other mannerisms which telegraphs a desired outcome or expectation. As with the case of Personal Assistants, who could easily read the wishes and desires of their boss, so it is often with employees and political appointees, who hold their job at the goodwill and pleasure of their appointers. So when the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Comy tells American people that no other third party or any arm of the government influenced the investigation, as well as the conclusion he reached in the matter of investigation of Hillary Clinton's email-gate scandal, Icheoku understands that the director was but assuring the public on the "unbiased" decision of his agency.
The director is a civil servant, appointed by the president and holding his office at the pleasure of the president. It is natural that he has bills and other financial obligations to meet monthly just like every other Joe American, working for his or her paycheck. Like with every other decent hard working American, he would like to keep his job because those checks makes his life somewhat much easier. Nobody wants to lose his or her job or be fired from visor her job by an irate boss, whose expectations or desires from his subordinates were either not met, snubbed or not correctly read and interpreted. So is it possible that even without any direct instructions of any kind from either the White House or the Clintons, that the need to do what will be pleasing to the boss, weighted heavily n the minds of FBI investigators who worked on this matter, albeit subconsciously?
But like the director who did not find any "intent" on the part of Hillary Clinton to commit any crime in this matter, Icheoku did not similarly find the smoking gun of any arm twisting; but there is reasonable grounds to make an inference that some water probably passed under the bridge between the White House, The Clintons, the Attorney General and the FBI. This is the conclusion shared by many Americans, who after listening through the litany of prosecutable evidence of complicity against Hillary Clinton by the director, became somewhat bewildered about the irreconcilable conclusion reached. That everybody has a price is a fact of life and Don Corleone in GodFather emphasized this much when he said "I will make you an offer you cannot refuse." However, like the director who did not find Hillary Clinton's "intent" to commit any crime, Icheoku did not find any smoking gun evidence of a price paid or offered or received; but maintains that infallibility is only reserved for God as every human being's needle could be moved one way or the other.
The conclusion not to prosecute Hillary Clinton on the strength of adduced evidence does not pass the smell test; especially juxtaposed against the background of the labored analysis rendered by the FBI. The FBI had a choice not to delve into a detailed methodical rehash of their investigation; and could have generally told the American people that after a detailed investigation, they could not find any crime committed by Hillary Clinton worthy of prosecution. This would have sufficed; but to, after detailing their investigation, reach the conclusion reached, rubbishes every analytical thinking and logic. Many educated minds, especially those in the legal field, are scratching their heads in awe, wondering how could such two polar opposites cross paths. The detailed investigation can only conclude one way and one way only, an indictment; but not otherwise. So the director must understand why many cynic naysayers will ever remain skeptical that Crooked Hillary Clinton was found not culpable despite the mountain of evidence of her culpability, especially on the gross negligence grounds which were amply implicated by her gross reckless conduct.
As to the director's reasonable person's standards test, wherein he stated that any reasonable person should have known that many of the emails were classified or ought or should have be classified, Icheoku says can there be any other personification of a reasonable person than Hillary Clinton? If a lawyer with several years of practice experience, a former United States Senator, a former First Lady of Arkansas and former First Lady the United States of America is not qualified as a reasonable person, to know or have known that such materials were classified or supposed to be classified, who else so qualifies? Further the test of a reasonable person varies with the person's standing in life as well as knowledge and exposure. The bar is usually lowered if the person is just a person of straw or an ordinary Joe Blow or Jill Goofy American; but it is necessarily raised if the person is with stature, a bill which Hillary Clinton eminently fits into. Therefore, if any person ever qualified as a reasonable person, bequeathed of these expectations, Hillary Clinton perfectly fits that tab.
Delving into the main frame of his argument which persuaded the decision not to indict, Hillary Clinton's mens rea or "intent" or lack thereof, Icheoku says if a person of her status claimed lack of knowledge, of what appears to be a strict liability crime, such knowledge should, by necessary implication, have been affixed to her; by reason of who she is and her very unique background and knowledge. Crime of espionage for profiteering should as of necessity be unburdened by the requirement of overt intent. A former CIA top shot was once caught passing classified information; Pollack was once caught and sentenced too. The only difference here was that Hilary Clinton was not caught pants down passing information. She destroyed possible evidence of that, hence no one can authoritatively say the end use of those emails. Icheoku is emphatic that but for the 30,000 destroyed emails, a possible smoking gun would have been unearthed.
The act of diverting emails from their regularly secured government severs should have sufficed to indict her; and not necessarily the wrong use to which she put them or wanted to make of them. The crime should be in the doing the prohibited act and not what her underlying intention was or their planned end use. Rerouting these emails through her personal server is the key here; but not whether or not she intended to harm America. It is like Robin Hood arguing that he steals not for his personal use but to help the poor. But a bank robbery is consummated in the act of robbing a bank and not the end use the bank robber put his loot or wanted to put of the stolen money. What if all those allegedly "speaking fees" were money paid for information which were laundered back to the Clintons as speaking fees? No one knows for sure because Hillary Clinton cleverly covered up her tracks by the destruction of evidence - 30,000 emails destroyed.
Therefore the excuse of lack of intent should never have come up; she diverted or rerouted those emails and that is what is imperative. Further she took practically steps to destroy evidence and lied about it. Her intent should have been derived from her conduct and actions thereafter which were all geared towards suppressing investigation. Intent generally and in most cases is never expressed nor written down anywhere for investigations to stumble upon. No, as always, it is proved or established by circumstances and conducts which make its presence inferable. It is implied from pattern of conduct, which in this case include committing the act, lying about it and following through with trying to cover it up by destroying the evidence. A person who actively destroyed 30,000 involved emails cannot be said act out of goodwill or clear conscience; only a person with guilty mind acts to cover her tracts in this manner?
The other issue is the conduct of the director, who many people observed, appeared labored and laboring under a very strong internal conflict through his presentation. His impeccable character notwithstanding, Icheoku says saints reside in heaven but are not of this world. Why did the director publicly recommend that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted or rather cast doubt on the reasonableness of any prosecutor who dares to prosecute her. Ordinarily the FBI completes its investigation and internally make their findings known to the Attorney General who them proceeds to decide on the way going forward. But no, the Attorney General had indicated that she will abide by whatever recommendation the FBI makes and the telegraph was received and acted upon.
Icheoku says it is in the same manner Hillary Clinton hid her speeches to Wall Street and till this day has refused to let anyone see their content, the same pattern played out with her emails. It only goes to show that her Crooked alias is well earned and suited; as it sums up her total lack of honesty, transparency, trustworthiness and her penchant for deceitfulness and dishonesty. Yet she wants the American people to trust her with the highest office in the land by electing her to the White House? Query, if as a candidate, Crooked Hillary will not disclose her emails and speeches, imagine what she will get away with as president.
Icheoku says the imperative here is that Crooked Hillary diverted emails from authorized secured government servers to her private servers, had a reason for doing so and tried to cover up her action and severally lied about it. The intent to do harm should have been imputed by her surreptitious conduct, period. Deleting the emails and lying about them is obstruction as she intended to prevent the investigating authorities from ever seeing what they contained. Icheoku maintains that 110 classified emails are a lot of emails to be compromised and she should have been made to answer for her misdeeds and indiscretions.
Why would a supposedly innocent Crooked Hillary Clinton delete 30,000 harmless emails, lie to American people that she produced all her emails to investigating authorities and that none of them was classified. If those destroyed emails were innocuous as Crooked Hillary Clinton made everybody to believe, why did she destroy them? One thing and one thing only, she was hiding something which she does not want American people to know about her and her transactions. It is equally possible that some of them contained matters not favorable to American people's interest and she didn't want them to see the daylight.
Delving into the main frame of his argument which persuaded the decision not to indict, Hillary Clinton's mens rea or "intent" or lack thereof, Icheoku says if a person of her status claimed lack of knowledge, of what appears to be a strict liability crime, such knowledge should, by necessary implication, have been affixed to her; by reason of who she is and her very unique background and knowledge. Crime of espionage for profiteering should as of necessity be unburdened by the requirement of overt intent. A former CIA top shot was once caught passing classified information; Pollack was once caught and sentenced too. The only difference here was that Hilary Clinton was not caught pants down passing information. She destroyed possible evidence of that, hence no one can authoritatively say the end use of those emails. Icheoku is emphatic that but for the 30,000 destroyed emails, a possible smoking gun would have been unearthed.
The act of diverting emails from their regularly secured government severs should have sufficed to indict her; and not necessarily the wrong use to which she put them or wanted to make of them. The crime should be in the doing the prohibited act and not what her underlying intention was or their planned end use. Rerouting these emails through her personal server is the key here; but not whether or not she intended to harm America. It is like Robin Hood arguing that he steals not for his personal use but to help the poor. But a bank robbery is consummated in the act of robbing a bank and not the end use the bank robber put his loot or wanted to put of the stolen money. What if all those allegedly "speaking fees" were money paid for information which were laundered back to the Clintons as speaking fees? No one knows for sure because Hillary Clinton cleverly covered up her tracks by the destruction of evidence - 30,000 emails destroyed.
Therefore the excuse of lack of intent should never have come up; she diverted or rerouted those emails and that is what is imperative. Further she took practically steps to destroy evidence and lied about it. Her intent should have been derived from her conduct and actions thereafter which were all geared towards suppressing investigation. Intent generally and in most cases is never expressed nor written down anywhere for investigations to stumble upon. No, as always, it is proved or established by circumstances and conducts which make its presence inferable. It is implied from pattern of conduct, which in this case include committing the act, lying about it and following through with trying to cover it up by destroying the evidence. A person who actively destroyed 30,000 involved emails cannot be said act out of goodwill or clear conscience; only a person with guilty mind acts to cover her tracts in this manner?
The other issue is the conduct of the director, who many people observed, appeared labored and laboring under a very strong internal conflict through his presentation. His impeccable character notwithstanding, Icheoku says saints reside in heaven but are not of this world. Why did the director publicly recommend that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted or rather cast doubt on the reasonableness of any prosecutor who dares to prosecute her. Ordinarily the FBI completes its investigation and internally make their findings known to the Attorney General who them proceeds to decide on the way going forward. But no, the Attorney General had indicated that she will abide by whatever recommendation the FBI makes and the telegraph was received and acted upon.
Icheoku says it is in the same manner Hillary Clinton hid her speeches to Wall Street and till this day has refused to let anyone see their content, the same pattern played out with her emails. It only goes to show that her Crooked alias is well earned and suited; as it sums up her total lack of honesty, transparency, trustworthiness and her penchant for deceitfulness and dishonesty. Yet she wants the American people to trust her with the highest office in the land by electing her to the White House? Query, if as a candidate, Crooked Hillary will not disclose her emails and speeches, imagine what she will get away with as president.
Icheoku says the imperative here is that Crooked Hillary diverted emails from authorized secured government servers to her private servers, had a reason for doing so and tried to cover up her action and severally lied about it. The intent to do harm should have been imputed by her surreptitious conduct, period. Deleting the emails and lying about them is obstruction as she intended to prevent the investigating authorities from ever seeing what they contained. Icheoku maintains that 110 classified emails are a lot of emails to be compromised and she should have been made to answer for her misdeeds and indiscretions.
Why would a supposedly innocent Crooked Hillary Clinton delete 30,000 harmless emails, lie to American people that she produced all her emails to investigating authorities and that none of them was classified. If those destroyed emails were innocuous as Crooked Hillary Clinton made everybody to believe, why did she destroy them? One thing and one thing only, she was hiding something which she does not want American people to know about her and her transactions. It is equally possible that some of them contained matters not favorable to American people's interest and she didn't want them to see the daylight.
Icheoku says no indictment, no justice. No justice, no peace; as American people wait for the DOJ to decide on the way forward. There cannot be two justices - one for Hillary Clinton and one for the rest of American citizens who are not politically connected. Anything short of her indictment and full prosecution is unacceptable; moreso as many prosecutors disagree with the director that only unreasonable prosecutor will proceed with the case. At worse, let the court throw the case out but it is not the directors to recommend no prosecution.
The fix apparently was on, starting with the president endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton without waiting for the investigation to complete; then the Bill Clinton meet with the AG leading to the AG saying that she will abide by whatever the FBI advises and now the FBI has advised and the AG has agreed that the matter be ended and is ended; thus lifting the fog of criminal prosecution off Hillary Clinton's shoulder. Only in America and they want the world to listen when they preach justice and fairness and equality for all. Please give Icheoku a break.
The fix apparently was on, starting with the president endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton without waiting for the investigation to complete; then the Bill Clinton meet with the AG leading to the AG saying that she will abide by whatever the FBI advises and now the FBI has advised and the AG has agreed that the matter be ended and is ended; thus lifting the fog of criminal prosecution off Hillary Clinton's shoulder. Only in America and they want the world to listen when they preach justice and fairness and equality for all. Please give Icheoku a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment