REPORTERS TELL TRUMP: IT’S A MISTAKE TO ATTACK US!

POSTED ON JUNE 1, 2016 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN DONALD TRUMP, MEDIA BIAS

Following Donald Trump’s criticisms of the political press yesterday, various reporters have hurried to tell us that he is making a mistake. See, for example, what happened on CNN:

On Tuesday’s Legal View, CNN’s Mark Preston asserted that Donald Trump’s latest attack on the media was “an absolute mistake because he doesn’t want to necessarily do that.” Preston soon added that “Trump deciding to take on the media at this point because he doesn’t feel like they are treating him well is actually not a very good strategy — to the point the question was asked to him…do you have a thick enough skin to run for president?

It is safe to say that no Republican candidate will take tactical or strategic advice from CNN. In this case, the assertion that Trump’s push-back against the press is a mistake is ludicrous. On the contrary, Trump’s willingness to take on biased reporters is one of the key qualities that have endeared him to Republican voters.

And distaste for the press is not limited to Republicans. Gallup has repeatedly found that the press is one of America’s most despised institutions, ranking almost as low as Congress. Has anyone at CNN ever suggested that attacking Congress is misguided? Further, last year 70% of Americans polled said that they believe the press is biased, and does not even try to report the news fairly.

In the early stages of the primary season, I was often frustrated by over-the-top attacks on Donald Trump by liberal reporters at newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. This was because I wasn’t a Trump fan, and every time liberal reporters attacked him, his approval ratings went up. This is a lesson that Trump apparently has absorbed better than his opponents in the press, and I don’t think there is any risk that he will stop pushing back now.

Politifact: Hillary Clinton's Repeated Claims Using Private Email Server 'Was Allowed' is False

Katie Pavlich

As Hillary Clinton's email scandal continues to get worse, with an Inspector General report debunking a number of lies about her personal server last week, the Clinton campaign is ignoring the law of holes: When you're in one, quit digging.

In interview after interview, Clinton continues to claim what she did was allowed. This isn't true and now, Politifact is rating her claim that using a private email server to conduct all government business was "allowed" as officially false.

Hillary Clinton is sticking to her defense that her use of a private email server while secretary of state was "allowed," despite a critical independent audit that found it really wasn’t.

Since the news of Clinton’s email came to light in 2015, she has argued that she "complied with every rule" and that the practice was "allowed." We haven’t yet put the issue on the Truth-O-Meter because there were too many unknowns.

But the inspector general’s report has clarified some of those unknowns and demonstrated that Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email was, in fact, not allowed.

The report from the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General shatters one of Clinton’s go-to phrases about her email practice. We rate her claim False. 

But it isn't just Politifact coming down on Clinton's falsehoods. Last week The Washington Post editorial board classified Clinton's email practices as "inexcusable." The New York Timeseditorial board pointed out she's "drowning in email" and the Wall Street Journal focused on the national security risks Clinton took to maintain a personal email server to avoid transparency. USA Today stated plainly, "Hillary Clinton broke the rules." 

Meanwhile, the FBI continues its criminal investigation of the matter. 

Trump's press feud boils over

Trump's press feud boils over  
By Jonathan Easley and Jonathan Swan - 05-31-16 18:35 PM EDT

Tensions between Donald Trump and the national media burst into the open Tuesday during a heated press conference at Trump Tower.

Top anchors for major news outlets peppered the presumptive GOP presidential nominee with questions about why it took him more than four months to give veterans groups the money he touted raising in January.

Some of the reporters accused the businessman of being thin-skinned and said he is seeking to avoid the scrutiny that comes with running for president.

Trump responded in kind, calling a male CNN anchor "a beauty," referring to an ABC News reporter in the audience as a "sleaze" and vowing to take his war against the press to the White House if he's elected.

"I'm going to continue to attack the press," Trump said as the event drew to a close. "I find the press to be dishonest. I find the political press to be extremely dishonest."

The atmosphere at the event appeared tense and could signal a turning point in Trump's conflicted but mutually beneficial relationship with the media.

The real estate mogul has dominated news coverage during his unlikely rise from political outsider to presumptive nominee. One study found that Trump benefitted from $2 billion in free media exposure during the campaign, which helped him to bury his rivals in the Republican nominating contest.

The blanket press converge is no accident. Trump readily makes himself available for interviews, at times appearing on multiple networks in a single day.

Meanwhile, Trump's rise has been a ratings and traffic bonanza for media outlets. News organizations have feasted on Trump's staged events, which have become must-watch television because of his tendency to stir up controversy.

Still, an undercurrent of tension between Trump and the media has long existed.

At rallies, the Trump campaign keeps reporters fenced inside a pen in the back of the room, and the candidate often points at reporters to mock them in front of his supporters.

Veteran Republican strategists, even one who is working with the Trump campaign, say Trump's relationship with the press is like nothing they've seen.

Charlie Black, an adviser to dozens of Republican leaders and now an informal adviser to the Trump campaign, conceded that while GOP presidential candidates have long scored political points by denouncing the press, Trump's feuds with media figures are of a different magnitude.

"[Richard] Nixon used to get his attack dogs to do it," Black told The Hill, recalling the press-bashing role played by Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew.

Black pointed to Trump's attempt to vilify Fox News host Megyn Kelly - a feud that was recently defused by a sit-down interview - saying that it "probably went further than anything I have seen anybody else do."

Trump has long complained of being slighted by news outlets that did not take his presidential campaign seriously. Now that he has secured the nomination, that initial dismissal is transforming into scrutiny, and the press is seeking to uncover details about his life as a Manhattan playboy, reality TV star and billionaire dealmaker.

The businessman has mused about "opening up" libel laws to make it easier for him to sue news organizations, and he has raised the prospect of an antitrust investigation into the business practices of Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post and Amazon.

Political watchers say the showdown between Trump and the media cuts both ways.

"I imagine Trump supporters will believe the press is full of sleazy reporters, while some moderates or independents could have second thoughts about him because they expect the president to have a judicious temperament," said Kathleen Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

At Tuesday's press conference, the media outlets pushed back as a group, refusing to allow Trump to take a victory lap at a staged event in his own building that was scheduled around Memorial Day to draw attention to his donations to veterans groups.

The showdown could mark the beginning of a more antagonistic relationship between the media and Trump as he moves into the general election campaign.

Stuart Stevens, a Republican strategist for more than two decades and the chief strategist for GOP nominee Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, said Trump risks going too far with his attacks on the media.

"Trump is completely without any respect for the purpose of the press," Stevens said.

"Trump understands two things: Submission or defiance. He doesn't understand basic American values."

Still, polls show the public at large has a dim view of the press, making it an easy target. Trump believes he has plenty of ammunition for the fight, often taking issue with the way stories are "couched," as he put it on Tuesday.

A Trump campaign source told The Hill that Trump's attacks on the media are "part of his appeal" in that he "tells it like it is." And when he feels he's being treated unfairly he will hit back.

The Trump campaign source said the businessman was "frustrated" Tuesday that the media ignored all the good he was doing while taking "a negative approach to every story."

"When he thinks he's being covered fairly, he calls reporters directly and sends handwritten notes congratulating them," added the Trump source, stressing that context is important.

New culture wars erupt in House

New culture wars erupt in House
By Cristina Marcos - 06-01-16 06:00 AM EDT

When Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) offered a measure last summer to forbid funds in an underlying spending bill from being used by federal contractors discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, it was approved with little fanfare.

President Obama a year earlier had issued an executive order prohibiting such discrimination by federal contractors. No one bothered to speak out on the House floor against adding the Peters language to a Transportation Department spending bill.

"We thought that was it," Peters said.

Now, almost a year later, appropriations bills are all but under siege over identical amendments.

An Energy Department spending bill failed on the House floor last week after Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney's (D-N.Y.) amendment to enforce Obama's 2014 order was adopted.

Between the conservatives who bolted over Maloney's amendment and Democrats who opposed GOP riders and spending levels in the bill, support for the $37.4 billion legislation collapsed.

Election-year politics are certainly playing a role in the new battles.

The election season always inflames politics on the House floor as lawmakers in both parties eye primary challenges and seek to play to their bases.

But lawmakers say there's more to the story this time around.

They say outrage among the conservative grass roots over the Obama administration's push to require public schools to let transgender people use bathrooms matching their gender identity has provoked a serious backlash that makes the new amendments offered in the House much tougher for Republicans to let stand.

Democrats also see a political opportunity in forcing votes on the amendments.

Much of their strategy in 2016 is about painting the GOP as a reflection of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's derogatory rhetoric about women and minorities. Pushing amendments that forbid discrimination, and then watching Republicans fight over them, works to Democrats' favor.

"I think we're living in a new world of Donald Trump and a Republican Party that is driving itself further and further away from common sense and further toward a radical approach to government," said Maloney, an openly gay Democrat who offered the amendments over the last few weeks prohibiting federal contractors from engaging in LGBT discrimination.

To Republicans, the fight has become a proxy battle over what they see as executive overreach. Fewer and fewer Republican lawmakers are backing amendments similar to the Peters and Maloney language. Sixty Republicans backed the Peters amendment in 2015. Only 43 supported identical language last week.

Some Republicans are also offering their own countermeasures.

The House last week adopted Rep. Robert Pittenger's (R-N.C.) amendment to prevent the administration from withholding federal funds as part of its fight against North Carolina's law requiring transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender at birth.

The language was added to last week's spending bill, and Pittenger promises to repeat the move with future appropriations bills.

"Yes, we are a pluralistic society. Yes, we need to have respect for all people," Pittenger said. But Obama, he says, "needs to be reined in."

The fighting has divided House Republicans and complicated Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) job.

Seven House Republicans came under fire after they were accused of switching sides under pressure from GOP leaders so that Maloney's amendment would fail the first time it was offered.

At a closed-door GOP conference meeting last week, one Georgia lawmaker (Rep. Rick Allen) read a Bible passage condemning homosexuality and suggested that people voting for the Democratic amendment were committing a sin. Several Republican lawmakers walked out of the room in disgust.

Republicans who voted for the anti-discrimination measure in 2015 but later opposed it, such as Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), said they backtracked after concerns emerged later about conflicts with the free expression of religion.

"Renacci was confident religious liberties would be fully protected at the time he took the vote on the Peters amendment, but after talking further with constituents, he believed that such amendments should expressly clarify that religious liberties would remain fully protected," spokeswoman Lizzie Litzow said.

This time, the fight over transgender bathroom policies and LGBT discrimination is part of what Republicans such as Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) see as a string of events downplaying religious freedom.

He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the ObamaCare decision involving Hobby Lobby, the crafts store that sued over the healthcare reform law's requirement that businesses offer coverage for birth control.

"In general, I think there is less support among the liberal Democrats for anything having to do with religion. They're becoming anti-religion," Byrne said.

House GOP leaders are trying to avoid another fight over LGBT discrimination by possibly limiting or adding restrictions to the open process currently used to consider appropriations bills.

When asked about the GOP criticism that he offered his amendment merely as a political maneuver, Maloney shot back: "I think that's easy for someone to say who has all their rights.

"As you can see, the war's not over."

Hillary’s Service as Secretary of State: A Failure of Leadership (and a National Security Disaster)

Back

Kenneth Eliasberg

In evaluating Hillary Clinton's competence, a good place to start is to take a close look at her tour of duty as Secretary of State. Is the U.S. safer and/or held in higher regard around the world as a result of her efforts?

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to note why she got that appointment: Not because of either her acumen or experience. Rather it was Barack Obama extending the olive branch in order to bring a fractured Democratic Party together -- fractured because of a very heated and divisive Democrat primary.

That said, even a cursory examination of her service in this position yields up a resoundingly negative answer to that question. As has already been frequently noted, her tour began with her screwing up the Russian reset button, and it ended with her Benghazi dereliction, leading to the death of 4 Americans. What happened in between these bookends, and what are the consequences of those happenings?

Let's start with the Middle East, that boiling cauldron of infidel hatred. Syria, where, you may recall, President Obama drew a red line (apparently in invisible ink) should Assad use chemical weapons against the insurrectionists, is in chaos -- after Syria did use chemical weapons and Obama failed to act on his red line. And now, long after Obama declared the importance of taking down the Assad government, Russia is in the country, providing support for Assad remaining in power (and thereby providing the Russians with a Mediterranean access).

Note: Whenever I refer to Obama, I include Secretary Clinton, since she was the foreign policy czar as Secretary of State. Also, ISIS (Obama's designated jayvee) is heavily engaged in the area. But the most important news would seem to be Russia's involvement, giving it a more important position on the world stage (as well as directly preventing Obama's takedown of the Assad regime).

And here, one has to question the wisdom of taking down the Assad regime. Why? Because we have no idea of who or what would replace it. And, as our intervention in Libya demonstrated, when you create a vacuum in backward, barbarian regions, you set the stage for it to be filled by even more hostile forces.

And that is exactly what happened in Libya, where the Obama/Clinton team led (from behind) a coalition of forces to depose this petty tyrant who was no more a national security threat to the U.S. than was Somalia. Indeed, as soon as we invaded Iraq when George W. Bush was president, Gadhafi abandoned any nuclear ambitions that he may have entertained.

The pretext for Obama's completely unnecessary action against Libya's regime was that genocide was being committed by this dictator. On that basis, assuming that it was true, we could just as easily have invaded many other any Middle Eastern countries; there are no democracies in that region other than Israel. As a result of this completely unnecessary invasion, anarchy ensued; there was nothing resembling a government left when we finished.

The result? Benghazi and the death of 4 of America's finest thanks to Hillary Clinton's abdication of duty, another of her massive failures which she then endeavored to lie her way out of. First, by claiming that the slaughter was the result of an anti-Muslim video (which she knew to be a lie at the time she uttered it), and then by arguing that there was no time to come to the rescue of these embattled agents of the U.S. As to the claim that her security people were responsible for not responding to Ambassador Steven's requests for additional security – made many weeks before the slaughter – this boggles the mind. At her Benghazi testimony she appeared to claim no responsibility for the actions of her security people -- as if they didn't work for her. And not only was no one ever fired for this failure, Bill Clinton came out and produced some Clintonian malarkey to the effect that no predecessor had ever been responsible for the failure of the security personnel.

Hillary's experience as secretary of state cannot be counted as a positive entry on her resume. Experience does count. This experience counts against her.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

The Myths of American Slavery

Back

Michael Kimmitt

As construction of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture progresses toward its September opening, Museum Director Lonnie Bunch joined CBS "60 Minutes"' Scott Pelley on a visit to Mozambique in search of a ship that carried hundreds of African slaves to the bottom of the Indian Ocean when it foundered 220 years ago. 

"The story of slavery is everybody's story," Bunch explained to Pelley. "It is the story about how we're all shaped by, regardless of race, regardless of how long we've been in this country. We hope that we can be a factor to both educate America around this subject but maybe more importantly help Americans finally wrestle with this, talk about it, debate it…"

So how are 21st Century citizens of the United States obliged to "finally wrestle" with, in this case, the long-ago deaths of Africans who were enslaved by other Africans, forcefully driven for many miles through a Mozambique port and on to a Portuguese slave ship bound for Brazil, while the descendants of all those who actually participated in this event are allowed to be wistfully unconcerned and guilt-free?

You see, Mr. Bunch is wrong on one key point. Slavery is not everybody's story -- it must remain exclusively a story for the United States and its people. Only we are required to bear the indelible stain of this country's original sin -- and it appears those who entered or will enter here assume this mantle of guilt themselves a century-and-a-half after the institution of slavery was ended.

It is a scab that must be picked at incessantly -- not out of any real concern for those who suffered centuries ago, but to gain political advantage today. Our nation can nominally assuage its relentless shame with assorted forms of reparations from those who never were masters to those who never were slaves.

Hollywood again obliges this week with an eight-hour retelling of Alex Haley's "Roots", a venture apparently so vital it requires an unprecedented simultaneous airing on three television networks over four consecutive nights. Variety magazine suggested the new miniseries finally will provide the truth about the "cruel persistence" of this peculiar institution in our country to "generations of Americans who are uninformed about the true dimensions of slavery, or who prefer to remain willfully ignorant of its scope and lingering effects."

However, those generations of American schoolchildren have been marinated in the notion that the institution of slavery sprang fully formed in 1619 when 20 Africans slaves landed in Jamestown, Virginia. (Actually, they originally were destined for Vera Cruz, Mexico aboard a Portuguese slave ship before being intercepted by a British privateer. It is believed the 20 were accepted as indentured servants and eventually were freed.)

Any discussion of slavery in this country should start with the recognition that the North American British colonies were remarkably small players in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Of the approximate 12.5 million Africans taken in bondage to the New World, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Databases estimates only about 388,000 came to what is now the United States -- and virtually all aboard European-flagged slave ships. That represents a little more than 3% of the Africans brought to the Western Hemisphere.

So is Washington D.C. really the most appropriate place for a museum that focuses so heavily on the desperate institution, or should other candidates be considered? Here are some possible alternatives:

Baghdad, Iraq -- The institution of slavery predates recorded history but the earliest references were recorded in the Code of Hammurabi in about 1760 B.C. 

Mecca, Saudi Arabia -- Beginning in the 7th Century, adherents of Mohammed founded a series of caliphates that brought all of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula under Muslim control. For eight centuries before the first European slavers arrived in Africa, Arab Muslims established a robust trans-Sahara trade that would eventually capture an estimated 18 million Africans. Slavery was not made illegal in the Arabian Peninsula until 1962.

Lagos, Nigeria -- African slavery predated the arrival of the Arabs and Europeans and continues to this day. In some areas of Cameroon and Northern Nigeria, up to half the population lived in slavery. More than two million slaves were released by the British in Nigeria alone in the early 1900s. 

Tripoli, Libya -- Muslim pirates along the North African Barbary Coast didn't stop with the enslavement of Africans, but also preyed upon Mediterranean shipping and coastal cities. An estimated 1.25 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved by these pirates, whose abuses forced Thomas Jefferson to send the nascent United States Navy to shut them down. The event is commemorated to this day in the Marine Corps hymn reference to their exploits on "the shores of Tripoli."

Lisbon, Portugal -- This Iberian peninsula country was by far and away the most prolific transporter of Africans to the New World and was, along with Spain, notorious for its ruthless in the treatment of those slaves. 

Rome -- It is estimated that 35% to 40% of the First Century B.C. Roman Empire population were slaves. They were drawn from throughout Europe and acquired by slave traders who followed the Roman army on its path of conquest. 

London -- While England played a key role in reducing the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the early 19th Century, it had previously been involved in selling Irish and African human cargo. More than 30,000 Irish prisoners were sent in bondage by King James II to work on English plantations in the West Indies beginning in 1625. In a single decade more than half a million Irish were killed and another 300,000 sold as slaves -- reducing the population of Ireland by more than 60%. Many hundreds of thousands of Irish peasants were shipped to Barbados, Jamaica, and British North American colonies. Over a period of two-and-a-half centuries, more than 10,000 voyages by British ships also carried an estimate five million Africans in bondage to the New World -- second only to Portugal. 

Mexico City -- Slavery was widely practiced by the Aztec and Mayan nations long before the arrival of the Spanish. Ritualistic human sacrifices and cannibalism were commonplace, with tens of thousands of slaves slaughtered each year. African slaves arrived in Mexico almost a century prior their appearance in what is now the United States. Violent slave revolts against their brutal treatment occurred as early as 1537 in Mexico, 82 years before the first Africans were brought to what is now the United States.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil -- Long before the first Portuguese settlement in 1532, indigenous tribes routinely enslaved one another. However, Brazil soon became by far the leading New World importer with more than 4.8 million African slaves toiling in the most brutal working conditions in this nation's plantations and gold mines. Brazil also was the last Western country to abolish slavery in 1888. 

It is a pretty good rule of thumb to conclude that wherever humans have existed, so has slavery. It was far more brutally practiced throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, where the death rate was so high the slave population could not be sustained without continual importations from Africa. In the U.S. there was a near balance of male and females so the slave population crew by natural reproduction after the trans-Atlantic slave trade was banned in 1809.

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates caused a firestorm among his colleagues in the African-American studies ranks when he shared the facts of the relatively low number of slaves transported to British North America and primary role of African slave traders.

"People wanted to kill me," Gates said. "Black people were so angry at me. But we need to get some distance from the binary opposition we are raised in: evil white people and good black people. The world just isn't like that."

This is a message unlikely to resonate among those with a vested interest in fostering racial discord in this country.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

Hillary’s Potential Email Felonies

Back

Michael Bargo, Jr.

While Hillary Clinton likes to appear unconcerned about her email scandal, her actions have the potential to invite serious Federal issues.

For example, when Hillary accepted donations to her Foundation she may have violated Title 18 § 201. Section (b) clearly states "Whoever -- (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity of any fraud, on the United States"… The contents of the Clinton private server have yet to be fully investigated. However, if Hillary made any contact with any foreign agent or officer, such as booking speeches by Bill Clinton, she committed a Federal felony.

The FBI seem to be looking into the connections between her Charitable Foundation and her actions as Secretary of State.

And when she "allowed" Russia to control 20% of Canadian uranium in return for donations to the entity of her foundation, even indirectly, she violated §201. The penalty for each offense is to be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

When she placed classified information on her personal server she may have violated USC 18 §798; Disclosure of classified information:

(a) "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information --

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes…"

Note that just making this information available -- to hackers -- or using it in a manner prejudicial to safety, is a Federal crime. "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. "The term "classified information' means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution…" Romanian hacker Gucciferclaims to have hacked into her server and has struck a plea bargain with federal prosecutors.

The existence of this server, with her approval, is itself a violation of federal law, since it was kept in an insecure manner. There are no excuses, the prosecutors won't have to prove anything was done intentionally. For Hillary to employ a private internet tech to set up this server was itself a federal felony since it could not have been secure. Particularly since she was given a secure .gov email address and knew she had to use it exclusively for work product. High school freshmen today are instructed to submit all their homework to a very specific website maintained by their high school.

§832. Participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States

(a) "Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, willfully participates in or knowingly provides material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A) to a nuclear weapons program or other weapons of mass destruction program of a foreign terrorist power, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years."

Hillary worked, through her private server and Clinton Foundation, to aid Russia in gaining access to uranium.

§1001. Statements or entries generally:

(a) "Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry…"

§1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title…."

When Hillary said her emails only concerned yoga classes and her daughter's wedding plans she was making fictitious statements, misrepresented the nature of the emails, and fraudulently described the nature of the emails in order to avoid investigation. She also erased over 30,000 emails. Some of those recovered contained classified information.

§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States…"

§2232. (a)

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.-Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both..

(b) "Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction.-Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court's continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Hillary knew her emails were being investigated and intentionally acted to obstruct the investigation.

If not for the efforts of Judge Rudolph Contreras to order the State Department to release emails, Hillary would have continued to destroy them and delay the investigation.

An interesting side note is that Hillary went to Maine South high school in Park Ridge, IL, a suburb that borders Chicago. The FBI agent who sold more secrets to Russia than any agent in history, Robert Hanssen, grew up two miles from her and went to nearby Taft High School in Chicago.

© 2011 AmericanThinker