Clinton Email Case Further Undermines Confidence in the US Justice System
By Daily Bell Staff - May 06, 2016

Clinton email evidence so far doesn’t suggest intent to break law, officials say … Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. –Chicago Tribune

When the scandal broke that Hillary Clinton had been using her personal email to send classified documents, the presidential hopeful was put in a precarious position. Now, as her case develops we see that it is the country’s legal system as a whole that finds itself between a rock and a hard place.

If Hillary is not indicted the population will see that the justice is not being doled out equally, with those at the top seemingly above the law.

On the other hand, if she is indicted, the resultant furor will likely create other negative perceptions.

The US justice system does not need more bad news, especially after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who many believe was murdered.

Destabilized justice systems are bad for their nation-states. Nonetheless, in the US, such destabilization continues apace. Hillary Clinton is going to exacerbate that trend.

A March 2014 Rasmussen poll found that 43% of Americans believed that US justice is “unfair” to most Americans. Only 33% of those polled thought it was fair to poor Americans. 58% Americans trusted a jury more than a judge.

An April 2015 Harvard poll revealed that half of young Americans lacked confidence “in the nation’s justice system or don’t trust their local police to do the right thing.”

Even more abysmally, a recent CNN poll revealed that “just 13% of Americans agree that the U.S. government “can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.”

 The news about US federal institutions is increasingly bad. Edward Snowden’s revelations of illegal NSA domestic spying created a significant furor.

The FBI’s unconstitutional worldwide expansion is less well known, but its quasi-manufactured terrorist incidents have received widespread coverage in the alternative ‘Net media, much of it disapproving.

The increasing violence of civilian police officers is well known and subject to considerable mainstream reporting.

Then there are plans by such individuals as George Soros to exploit people’s unhappiness via such groups as Black Lives Matter.

There are alternatives to the current system of course. Here at DB, for instance, we’ve helped remind people that justice used to private and ad hoc.

If people had difficulties with one another, a third party was brought into adjudicate. Or the differences were simply settled between the parties concerned.

Occasionally there was violence, but for the most part such violence was either a last resort or presented to motivate the parties concerned to settle matters peaceably.

That is not the case today. In the US alone there are perhaps six million involved in the prison system at any one time. But these statistics do not encompass the totality of the US criminal-industrial complex.

In fact, the trend is toward private prisons that basically condemn prisoners to slavery so long as they are incarcerated. Private operators of prison systems even have contracts in place that mandate communities must generate a certain level of convictions.

Some years ago USA Today carried an article citing the absurd statistic (as we recall) that one out of every three individuals had experienced some sort of potential criminal interaction with the US justice system by the time they were in their mid 20s.

It used to be too expensive to build this kind of system. But the installation of central banking economies worldwide have made the expense of incarceration something of a secondary concern.

These systems are constantly evolving because so many individuals are involved in support jobs. However, a case such at the one in which Hillary Clinton is involved can do considerable damage.

Clinton is an extremely controversial figure as is her husband. For years the Internet has featured alternative media reports of their alleged misdeeds, from embezzlement and theft to rape and serial murder.

If Clinton is not indicted for her apparent email transgressions, a sizeable minority – or even a majority – of US citizens will conclude once more that the system is biased and even “broken.”

According to this Tribune article, that is just what may happen however:

In recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

CNN reported Thursday that longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin was among those interviewed. A lawyer for Abedin did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

Additionally, the article states that “There is no indication a grand jury has been convened in the case.”

It is hard to know the reason for these leaks. Perhaps they are intended to influence public perception.

Or maybe top FBI executives have concluded an indictment is impossible to make for a variety of reasons, including political ones, and are trying to get out ahead of public opinion on the matter.

Here at DB, we won’t take any position on Ms. Clinton’s potential innocence or guilt. However, there is no way of winning with such high profile cases. They inevitably generate even more questions about the entire system with increasingly significant – and possibly near-term – consequences.

Conclusion: In the long term, such questioning is an unmitigated good … given the suffering the system causes. In the short-term, US justice (and Western justice generally) is likely to face increasing and significant turbulence. It is a “broken” system that does not offer any real possibility of significant repair.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • apberusdisvet

    I have no problem believing in conspiracy theories, since so many turn out to be conspiracy fact. The latest one I’ve seen says that Hillary gets indicted and pardoned by Obama or withdraws under the threat of indictment due to “health issues”. Then, at the Democratic Convention, Biden and Warren become the Democratic dream ticket, kicking Sanders under the bus, just like the R’s did with Ron Paul.

    This theory is very pragmatic; it solves a lot of problems. If Hillary doesn’t get indicted or withdraws, Trump will easily win, given the enormous blowback. The game plan for the Dems will be to forestall the economic implosion until the election so as not to get tarred with that brush. We’ll see; it’s going to get interesting folks.

    • Bruce C.

      The main issue for a lot of voters (hopefully the majority) is electing a political outsider. My guess is the same folks that would vote for Hillary would vote for that Biden-Warren ticket so I don’t think that would change the odds.

      Furthermore, if the the Dems try to do that Bernie would probably run as a 3rd party (he’s not a Dem anyway), and then Trump would definitely win.

      • tenaya

        Mr. Sanders doesn’t have the sand to run as a 3rd party candidate; he has great grass roots support that he did not create (it’s part of the society that wants to rebel against the status quo – he just lucked out as to its person of focus) but he lacks the philosophical grounding – the ethical basis – necessary to stand up to the Democrat party’s base statist constituency.

        • Bruce C.

          That’s funny! ‘he lacks the philosophical grounding necessary to stand up to the Dem party’s base statist constituency’. Oxymoronic too. I think Sanders at least sounds more statist than Clinton and that may be why he has such appeal. That’s also why Trump saying that he wants to maintain entitlements like SS and that the main purposes of government is ‘security, housing and education’ could capture those voters if Sanders doesn’t run.

          We shall see. Sanders running 3rd could just serve inadvertently the same role Kasich did in the Rep primary, taking enough votes from Cruz or Trump to hold them back.

  • tenaya

    Mrs. Clinton is many things, some of them nefarious, but she is first and foremost a megalomaniac. She will under no circumstances voluntarily withdraw her candidacy in
    this 2016 presidential race. Regarding her potential indictment because of e-mail related issues, the odds are slim to none. There is absolutely no way that
    president Obama and his administration will allow such an indictment to
    besmirch his presidential legacy.

    Sadly, the TDB staff’s conclusion is correct: It is a “broken” system that does not offer any real possibility of significant repair.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    Hillary and Bill are psychologically tolerated due to the skeletons they hide in their own closets. Both should be behind bars. Never is Satan busier than in a church, synagog or mosque.

  • Goldcoaster

    WTF difference does it make if it was “intentional”?
    It was “Intentional” that she used her own system, when clearly she should not.

    • Bruce C.

      She claims all of her predecessors used a private email server too, so she shouldn’t be held to a higher standard now.

      • tenaya

        Some but not all of her predecessors may have used private e-mail facilities. So, what you’re saying (or that Mrs. Clinton is saying) is that the rule of law is meaningless, capable of being invoked or not, depending on circumstances?

        • Bruce C.

          That’s her argument. “Progressives” tend to think that the end justifies the means and elites should be given leeway. If such-and-such advances or enables their agenda then it should be allowed. Laws and enforcement are a weapon to use against political enemies, not internally.

          • tenaya

            O.k. Agree.

    • tenaya

      Yes, Gc, you are 100% correct.

      Has anyone else noted that in the last day or so several internet
      aggregators have floated articles that appear to be stressing intent. The facts are that Mrs. Clinton publicly admitted to violating Federal regulations (i.e. that she used private e-mail server in violation of her signed oath of office) and, furthermore, she admitted to destroying various e-mails which is an act of obstruction of justice. On those 2 admissions alone the FBI could
      advise DOJ to indict. In an indictment scenario they would get a conviction – by her own words.

      Instead the FBI continues to stall and now, apparently, to misdirect about intent. That should tell everyone what’s going on: there is a singular lack of commitment by the FBI to advise DOJ to indict. Federal officials lack the psychological integrity necessary to carry out their sworn duties. One can draw his own conclusions about the final outcome of what is becoming a legal

  • Bruce C.

    According to “the judge” Andrew Napolitano who appears on Fox News a lot, and seems to be a pretty knowledgeable Constitutional attorney, the law that Clinton may be indicted under DOES NOT require that a prosecutor must prove INTENT to break the law. It has to do with treason, and intent is not necessary to obtain a conviction, only that the act was done. The key, of course, is to what extent that detail becomes public. That may be too technical for Trump to talk about in his campaign, but he can certainly (and probably will) point out that Hillary is getting special treatment (“elitism”, cronyism, being a big government insider, and possibly having dirt on others who may indict her.) He’s already mentioned that General Patreus was taken out for doing much less. Also, there is the possibility that Trump will order a new investigation into her actions if he becomes President. The Obama administration would probably rather sacrifice her now than allow that can of worms to be opened. It should be fun to see just how loyal who is to whom.

    • MetaCynic

      Judge Napolitano’s summary of the law in question here is that Clinton can be charged with criminal espionage if state secrets entrusted to her are mishandled regardless of the reason for this having happened. In short there is no defense against this! If Clinton admitted that state secrets ended up on her unsecure home server unintentionally, then she has confessed to a felony! In her first day in office as Secretary of State, she was briefed on the importance of safeguarding state secrets and on the consequences of failing to do so.

      Almost immediately afterward she proceeded to have a private unsecure server installed in her home to handle State Department communication. Under the law this act is itself a sign of criminal negligence akin to speeding while intoxicated in a car known to have faulty brakes. The FBI wouldn’t have 150 agents on her case if she was innocent of wrongdoing. It’s been reported that among the many thousands of emails found on her server, 2,000 contain state secrets. Others of lesser rank in her position have been prosecuted for much less.

      To make matters worse a jailed Romanian hacker has been extradited by the FBI to the US who claimed that he had broken into her server and into that of someone with whom she had been communicating State Department business.

      As if matters aren’t bad enough for her, Clinton is also being investigated for selling favors while secretary of state to foreign entities in return for large donations to the Clinton Foundation and for speaking engagements for Bill. The Benghazi fiasco could be related to this. It appears that the Clinton State Department was running guns to “moderate” terrorists thru the Benghazi office. It’s no secret that ISIS is an American, Israeli and Saudi made Frankenstein monster. Could someone have made a big contribution to the Clinton Foundation in return for guns for ISIS? Now, that would be the mother of all Clinton corruption scandals!

  • LawrenceNeal

    prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules… Intent is never considered with all those people inhabiting private prisons, only if a conviction could be obtained.

  • Ted Sorce


  • James Clander

    ‘Clinton is an extremely controversial figure as is her husband. For years the Internet has featured alternative media reports of their alleged misdeeds, from embezzlement and theft to rape and serial murder.’

    Like your article hints I’d put money on it that she is above the Law & will never be held to account. What a terrible message that sends.Here’s to hoping that Trump wins – just to stop her & no other reason.

    • Flash9

      The word is FBI director Comey is an honest man. Even if that is true, the justice dept. They sent a letter to NC threatening funding as the the new state law is unconstitutional per them as having biological males in mens room and biological females ditto is discrimanitory. It is simply ID politics dividing people to get the minorities energizied to vote democratic in the fall. NC is a swing state. They have no shame.

  • RED

    Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, via aggressive FOIA suits continues to uncover clear and compelling evidence that indictment should proceed. JW will continue to pursue the matter and chew away at her!

  • r2bzjudge

    No banker is in prison for massive felony financial crimes related to the housing bubble.

    In 2001, 10,000 appraisers petitioned the government about appraisal fraud.
    In September 2004, the FBI warned congress of massive mortgage fraud. In 2005, Alan Greenspan praised bankers for getting people into homes they could not afford. When Greenspan praised bankers he had to have been aware of the massive mortgage fraud.

    How can there be any confidence in the justice system? Certain people are above the law.

  • DB: ” It is a “broken” system that does not offer any real possibility of significant repair.”

    BISCHOFF: It is a “broken” system alright. but there is the possibility of a start to repair it. It is by the American people deciding to elect Donald Trump as U.S. President, and by Donald Trump keeping his word, uttered during the primary campaign, that he will prosecute Secretary Clinton, should he be elected U.S. President.

  • tommy tunes