LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog - WordPress version



"--takin' the BS outa' the BlogoSphere (and MSM) one shovel-full at a time "



~ Oct 19, 2015 ~

From the 
Pestilential Politicians Dept.


Cat fight's a-comin': 
Loretta Lynch is sorting out Hillary's eMail problem

Part II of a two part series
Part I  
Denis O'Brien 

If you're assuming that Bernie Sanders is Hillary Clinton's biggest challenge to getting the Democratic nomination, have you given any thought to the problem Attorney General Loretta Lynch poses?  

I mean, don't look now but Lynch's FBI is breathing right down Clinton's neck.  I know, I know, when the Clinton people were forced to turn over 55,000 pages of emails to the FBI the first week in August, they predictably down-played the media spasm as "old news, nothing to see here, move along."  That's what bent politicians always say when news of being investigated by the FBI first hits the news.  It's what that Republican cretin creep Micahel Grimm said about the investigation for fraud, tax evasion and perjury that resulted in a 20-count indictment, a conviction, and an eight-month prison sentence, which was supposed to start Sep10.15.

Grimm, it will be remembered, was not just a bent congressman, he was an ex-FBI agent.  He was an ex-Marine and graduated from law school magna cum laude.  None of that mattered to Lynch -- she was the US Attorney who prosecuted him.  She also busted the sick NYPD cops who assaulted Abner Louima, and she prosecuted two Democrats in the NY State Assembly -- Pedro Espada, Jr., and Wm Boyland, Jr.  She initiated the federal investigation of the Eric Garner murder.  Now she's US AG and Hil has got to be pissing her panties. The problem for Hil as I see it is the gross disparity in the two ladies' PGIs. 


The Principle/Greed Index (PGI)

The Principle/Greed Index can tell you a lot about a politician or public servant, how and why they choose public office/employment, and, maybe, whether they're going to jail.  The PGI is calculated by dividing the strength of a person's principles by the strength of their greed, both of which are judged on past behavior. If a person's history of being honest and principled is 10x higher than their history of greed, their PGI will be 10; if their greed is 10x greater than their principles, their PGI will be 0.1. Most of us are not unduly driven by either greed or principle and we settle out at a GPI of about 1.  It's sort of like normal IQ being pegged at 100.  

When it comes to Loretta and Hil, the disparity in their PGIs is enormous, and that has to be giving Hil nocturnal palpitations -- not just stress over the election, but stress over going to prison. And the two are not unrelated, for it may be that the only way Hil can avoid prosecution is to get elected and shut the FBI investigation down, or at least preemptively pardon herself if she gets indicted.

I would peg Hil's PGI at 0.1 -- from what we know of her, her greed is easily 10x greater than her principles.  More on that in a moment.  On the other hand, it seems to me that Loretta's PGI must be running at or over 10, and I'm also going to explain in a moment why I say that, but for now just note that the PGI disparity between Hil and Loretta is 100-fold, and that explains the coming cat-fight.  

As long as a prosecutor and his/her target have roughly equivalent PGIs -- and a lot of prosecutors have no stronger principles and no lesser greed than the crooks they prosecute -- the two can usually work something out, at least in a white collar crime situation, which is what I'm talking about.  If they are both as greedy as a couple of koi at feeding time, they can find a way to make the situation go away, probably with a little help from something moving under a table, which they would both be amenable to discussing.  OTOH, if they both have histories of being moderately principled, the prosecutor will do what he/she can to keep the target out of prison, as long as the crime is not too egregious, for prison is no place for principled people accused of a singular one-off instance of white collar crime.  Again, I emphasize we are talking about white collar crime and not, say, murder, kiddie rape, or whistle-blowing.  

Uber-principled people like whistle-blowers who reveal to the world how crooked the government is are a problem because of their enormous PGI.  Obama, Bush, Nixon, and Netanyhu go out of their way to prosecute people with huge PGIs by claiming that they are considered a danger to society, when, in fact, they are a danger to an evil power-structure, and I'm thinking about Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake, Daniel Ellsberg, Mordechai Vanunu, and Edward Snowden.       


Hillary's PGI

We all know from the Clintons' first eight years in the White House what sleaze-balls they both turned out to be, even downstream from the Whitewater scandal, which tarred them both.  That whole blue dress in the Oral Office thing told us a lot about both Clintons, but my problem with Bill was not so much the regal blow-job from the hot Jewess with the hazel eyes, but more about him trying to pull a power-rape on Paula Jones in his room at the Excelsior Hotel, eventually buying her out with a $850,000 settlement, which is a de facto admission of guilt, IMO.  Bill's PGI is way off the scale and into the toilet, somewhere well below .001. 

But, of course, Bill's loose zipper and purulent lies don't determine Hil's PGI, except for the fact that she stayed with the philandering creep. There are two explanations for that that I can see: 1) Bill had so much trash on Hil that he could ruin her if he had to, and 2) her principles were so dominated by her greed that in her mind it was better to hang onto an alpha-male pervert and get rich rather than take a principled stand for women or set an example for her daughter. Of course these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. 

And it paid off for her in the long -- at least financially and politically, at least up until Loretta Lynch came to town.  Today we are told that Bill and Hillary are worth $140 million, much of which has been amassed since Obama was elected, according to the LAT.  And $140 mil is pretty good given the way they were "dead broke" at the end of Bill's presidency in 2001, at least according to Hil.  But when you're making speeches at $600k-$700k a pop and doing a little "consulting" for the Saudis on the side, it adds up pretty quickly -- together they paid almost $44 million in US taxes between 2007 and 2014.  Who cares if your husband is screwing every wench who can pull a zipper, this is big bucks we're talkin' and sometimes you just have to rise above principles. 

Hil's PGI: no higher than 0.1.


Loretta Lynch's PGI

Although Chuck Grassley and the other seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee did their best to smear Lynch and stall her nomination, it didn't work. There was nothing of substance in this woman's stellar career that could be used to stop her being appointed the 83rd US Attorney General.  The final vote in the Republican dominated Senate wasn't even close.  

The 82nd AG, Eric Holder, was black, too, of course, but unlike both Holder and Obama, Lynch is descended from American slaves, and born and raised in the south.  Her parents were not well off -- a preacher and a librarian in North Carolina.  But she worked her ass off and climbed the proverbial ladder: Harvard College, Harvard Law, prosecutor in the NY US attorney's office for the Eastern District -- the toughest in the country -- then Chief Asst. US Attorney, and finally US Attorney, appointed once by Bill Clinton and then again by Obama.  She sat on the Federal Reserve Bank of NY for two years.  She got the federal investigation of Eric Garner's murder rolling, she busted 14 FIFA officials, Michael Grimm, and other bent politicians. With a Harvard Law degree she could have set herself up to be a multimillionaire by the age of 40 either by going into politics or big business law like the Clintons.  I would say this woman's principles easily outweigh her greed 10:1.

Loretta's PGI: at least 10. 


Hil's Binary Email Problem

Lorett'a impressive PGI is trouble for Hil because all of those millions of dollars Hil and Bill have accumulated and those multimillion dollar homes they own are not going to mean squat to Loretta Lynch.  Principle has a way of looking past greed -- or worse, a way of looking at it as a character defect, which is what it is.  I mean Hillary would have a far better chance of surviving the next six months with the likes of AGs like Alberto Gonzales, or Michael Mukasey, or Calvin Cooldige's crooked AG, Harry DaughertyRon Hart has written that Hil is smart enough to know how dumb her voters are.  But she lacked the prescience to see the black lady from North Carolina with the high PGI and the "executioner's wand" coming down the pike. 

Hil's "Email problem" is really two problems, either of which could cause her head to roll.  

It all started with a hacker named "Guccifer" who hacked the aol eMail account of Sidney Blumenthal on Mar20.13.  Blumenthal is a confidant of Hil's and Guccifer's hack turned up her secret eM server and her eM address: hdr22@clintonemail.com.  Up until then the media had no idea she was running this eM server for State Dept business in her freaking Chappaqua basement. 

At about the same time, a House committee was investigating the Benghazi debacle and they almost immediately subpoenaed the Clinton eMs. Of course, ole' Hil, what with being a lawyer and all, tried to slime her way out of the subpoena.  Didn't work except to delay the inevitable.  Finally -- over a year later -- the eMs started to roll, not from Hil but from the State Dept. It started with a dribble. On Aug11.2014 Kerry's State Dept. handed over 10 ems to the Benghazi committee.  By Dec2014 55,000 pages of eMs had been handed over.   The AP filed a Freedom of Information Act suit against the State Dept. on Mar11.2015 in order to get the Ems, and on May27 a US District judge essentially ordered the State Department to release all of HRC's government-related eMs in 30 day allotments. And in Jul.2015 another federal judge ordered HRC to reveal all of the computer gear, hard drives, and thumb drives that contained government eMs.    

There is a subtle legal point at work here that I find fascinating.  Hillary has not turned over all of the eMs -- just those that she deems to be government-related.  For the common law that has grown up through FOIA litigation holds that a private person or entity cannot use FOIA to obtain personal correspondence or documents, not even those of a government employee or official.  There is valid speculation that Hillary attempted to exploit this rule by setting up the server and using it for her government and personal  business in an attempt to protect all of her correspondence from 1) discovery and 2) FOIA requests.  She said:

My personal e-mails are my personal business, right? We went through a painstaking process and turned over 50,000 pages of anything we thought could be work related. Under the law that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions.

It seems to me that the rule of law should be that when a government official co-mingles personal and government documents on one machine or storage device, all of the data are presumed to be government-related for FOIA purposes.  Federal judge Emmet Sullivan hasn't ruled on this issue explicitly, but in a hearing on Aug20.2015 he certainly suggested he was looking at the issue in that way.  Politico  

Hillary is quick to play the dumb blonde when it is to her advantage.  She'll tell the press that, no, she didn't wipe her hard drive with a cloth and that she knows nothing about these things.  But even the dumbest bimbo after getting caught red-handed would not try to sell the story that, hey, I just set up the private server and used it for government business because it was "more convenient."  Ron Hart is likely correct: Hillary's supporters are stupid enough to buy that story or they wouldn't be her supporters.  But Loretta Lynch isn't a supporter or that stupid.

Problem #1: Every since the FBI stepped in to investigate HRC's unusual eM arrangement, the MSM have focused entirely on whether or to what extent she had classified communications on her private server.  Clearly, that would be a problem, particularly if Lynch were to pull the kind of stunts Holder pulled in the Jeffrey Sterling case and retroactively label communications as classified after charges have been laid.  But Lynch won't pull a stunt like that. She probably won't have to.  Here are two brief paragraphs that set forth the legal language that could be the basis of Hil's first eM problem:

18 US Code 793 . . . 

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officeró

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g)  If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Problem #2:  Hil's second eM problem is considerably more complex than the first.  It is that the eMs -- particularly the material considered personal or private -- could contain evidence of influence peddling and other financial improprieties, possibly, and most likely, through the Clinton Foundation, run by Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.  There are at least three interrelated facets to this problem that could be exposed by "personal" documents on HRC's computer gear.

  • Tax avoidance --  During Hil's time as Secretary of State she, Bill, and Chelsea "earned" a total of over $26M in speakers' fees. WaPo  And that's cool . . . if there are idiots out there who want to pay them that much to hear what they have to say, cool.  What is not cool is that they passed the money onto the Foundation, thus avoiding paying personal income tax.  Forbes  The federal courts and the IRS don't like that sort of thing.  Their position is that whoever makes the speech pays the taxes on the speaker's fee.  Obviously, Hil was paid 6-digit speakers' fees not for being an ex-FLOTUS of a phlandering ex-POTUS, but for being SoS.  I mean, ask the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, why his foundation paid her between $250,000 and $500,000 [the disclosures are given as ranges, not precise numbers] for a speech -- money that went into the Clinton Foundation.

  • Foreign donations -- It really doesn't look good that countries with abysmal human rights records -- like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE -- donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hil was Secretary of State, and she then authorized the sale of weapons to the same countries -- sales that are not generally permitted to countries who abuse their citizens. And it doesn't look good, more generally, that the Clinton's State Dept. authorized the sale of $165M worth of weapons to 20 countries that donated generously to the Clinton Foundation. International Busines Times 

  • Corporate donations -- Of course, the Keystone pipeline (KXL) was one of the most contentious domestic topics during Hil's tenure as SoS, and while she didn't approve the pipeline while she was SoS, she certainly kept it alive.  Perhaps it is noteworthy that the Clinton Foundation received millions and millions of dollars from interested governmental and private concerns such as Canada's Foreign Affairs fund, TransCanada, Exxon, and a number of other oil giants.  Common Dreams  In Febuary2015 leftie FOX guy Juan Williams was livid about what he characterized as HRC's rank influence peddling over the KXL.  And Willliams didn't even raise the issues of  the Clinton 2016 Campaign hiring Jeffrey Berman, who was a lobbyist for TransCanada while Hillary was SoS, or her 2008 Campaign deputy manager, Paul Elliot, afterwards going to TransCanada as a lobbyist.  Really late in the game -- long after her eMs were discovered and the heat was on high, and well after the pipeline deal had been killed by Obama -- Clinton made a little known weekend news dump while the Pope was in town.  She explained how, after all, she was opposed to the KXL.  Smells like a foil to anyone with a nose.  Only in the last few weeks has TransCanada dropped its lawsuits against Kansas land owners who refused to given the Canadian company access to their property.  But TransCanada is re-applying for the license, after all, a new government is coming.  NYT  So the topic isn't entirely dead, and with TransCanada's Jeffrey Berman embedded with Clinton's campaign, it's likely that campaign contributions and contributions to the Foundation will continue in spite of Clinton's tepid, surreptitious "opposition."  


Yes, Hillary Clinton has a two-fold eMail problem: federal laws against holding confidential information outside of allowed premises and perceived influence peddling.  With tens of thousands of pages of eMs now floating around in a FOIA-fed cyber-space and being studied closely by Loretta Lynch's hounds, there is no telling what will come out of this mess.  But this much is pretty much certain given the disparity in the two ladies' PGIs: Loretta Lynch will not hesitate to indict if she sees a violation of federal law, and Hillary Clinton will not pull any punches in fighting back, especially if a prison term is a possible outcome of the prosecution. 

The demotic term "cat-fight" sounds so sexist these days, but it is not used here in a demeaning way, quite the contrary, for I think it is important to emphasize that these are two very powerful women, and it is good that today it is not all that uncommon for women to wield such power.  I mean, I cannot think of too many instances in the history of our species where two such powerful women have squared off against each other.  What comes first to mind is Queen Elizabeth's  "tiff" with Mary, Queen of Scots, which did not end well for Mary, who was beheaded in 1587 pursuant to the reluctant order of Elizabeth.  No eMails were involved in that case, or course, maybe because Mary had enough sense not to keep her server in her basement.  But, interestingly, missing letters and other "personal" correspondence played a major role in her fate.   

I hope that decades and centuries from now the look-back lesson from the Lynch-Clinton cat-fight will be a restatement of the lesson from the Elizabeth-Mary cat-fight: No woman and no man, no matter how powerful, is beyond the reach of an honest, principled person who has the power and the obligation to uphold the law.  

In my opinion Loretta Lynch is such a person, at least judging by her PGI.  


  • Inquisitr, May26.15 -- Clinton Foundation donation scandal looking more like influence peddling



Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.