Did Hillary Clinton Commit A Felony?

Of course, when anyone in Washington tells you to trust them, it always raises the suspicions of the people because in most cases they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Hillary Clinton is Exhibit A. This past week, during a press conference, she told the American people, “Trust me, I did nothing wrong.” But is that true, or did Clinton, in fact, break the law?

Clinton’s line was reminiscent of her husband’s lie during the 1990’s regarding his adultery with Monica Lewinsky. Remember, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”?

Clinton claimed the issue of using a private email was all about the inconvenience of carrying two electronic devices, which video evidence demonstrates was a lie as well.

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

But the issue is not what Clinton says, but what she did. Furthermore, one has to question why she did what she did, for in determining the answer to that question, one may discover what this Alinsky radical was actually engaged in.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Shannen W. Coffin writes at National Review:

That Mrs. Clinton is not the ultimate arbiter of whether her records must be preserved is made very clear in the Department of State’s own records-management manual. Under a provision titled “Removal Procedures,” the manual sets forth the process that each Department of State employee must go through upon separation (i.e., resignation or retirement) from the department. In addition to relinquishing classified materials, all employees are required to clear the removal of any unclassified materials through records-management officials.

Coffin also points out that when it comes to determining what is classified and what is not, the individual does not determine that on their own.

“The ultimate determination is most definitely not up to the employee, but rather to the agency and its records-management officials,” Coffin wrote.

According to the manual, cited by Coffin, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials proposed for removal.” Coffin then added, “‘The departing official must then ‘request a review of the materials proposed for removal.’ Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for ‘Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.'”

Howard Portnoy, in commenting on a form that should have been signed by Hillary Clinton upon her departure from the State Department wrote:

On page 15 of the handbook is a section titled Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material, which makes reference to a document called a Separation Statement, aka Form OF-109. Upon affixing his signature to this form, the outgoing official certifies under penalty of law that he has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the government acquired by me while in the employ of the (State) Department.”

What happens to an employee who violates the terms of the Form OF-109 she or he has signed? The punishment is spelled out in Section 18 U.S.C. § 1001 of the criminal code, which states that it is a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal facts made in statements to federal agencies concerning matters under their jurisdiction.

There’s even a warning to that effect in the Records Management Handbook:

Fines, imprisonment or both may be imposed for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code.

In short, that is the law, which Clinton swore to uphold as secretary of state.

Clearly, there is enough in Mrs. Clinton’s past that should give the American people pause before allowing her to engage in any political forum, much less a run for the White House, but this latest incident only provides more concern about the lawless nature of this individual. Whether she faces accusations of hiring a hit man, tosses out her working with Muslims jihadists and hiring them to provide security in Benghazi, or throwing her hands up under questioning about the murder of four Americans and exclaiming, “What difference does it make?,” there needs to be an investigation outside of the federal government to determine if Clinton is guilty of violating the law here. If she is, then let justice fall upon her and rid America of dealing with this communist in 2016.

We certainly have enough statists and constitutionally ineligible persons to deal with in the next election. Actions on this matter would simply ensure that we have one less to deal with.

As for me, Hillary Clinton is one of many in Washington that I can never trust.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Who’s Really Behind The Rigged Markets?
Next 2 States Pass Bills that Block Federal Gun Control Following Obama’s Unconstitutional Threats of Executive Orders

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.