Clinton email scandal: ‘Whole world should know about her crimes & what she’d like to do’

How was it possible that the FBI could not find several devices used by Hillary Clinton to send emails? Was her “could not recall” defense an attempt to avoid responsibility? Will Clinton be charged after she failed to protect top-secret information?

Experts spoke to RT and answered these and other questions. 

All the information about incidents where she was involved, like the one in Benghazi, should be revealed to the public, said Lew Rockwell, who is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. People should know why she “doesn’t recall” the key details, while having perfect health, he added. 

RT: How is it that the FBI was not able to find any of the 13 devices used by Hillary Clinton to send her emails? 

Lew Rockwell: I think she is a criminal, so she attempted to hide what she was doing. She was at the very least selling favors from the government to get money for the Clinton Foundation for herself, her husband, and the rest of their crew. That is why she used the special program to prevent retrieval, or so she hoped, of the e-mails that she erased. We should see it all; we should see everything about Benghazi, about every other thing she was involved in. She is a warmonger; certainly the way she talks she’d like to bring back the Cold War times seven; she’s very dangerous. So the more we can find out, the more we see her funny excuses about why her health is perfect, but she can’t remember everything, she had such a fall and hit her head. 

RT: What can we make of this Clinton “could not recall” defense? Is it an attempt to avoid responsibility? 

LR: No, it is just typical. She is a lawyer herself. That would be the typical lawyer advice, because they feel you can’t be gotten for perjury if you can’t recall. Of course there must be some things you can’t recall. But it is interesting she can’t recall the really key stuff and she blames it on her fall, which was a serious brain injury. But again, is that having an effect today? Shouldn’t she have a neurological exam? Shouldn’t we hear about what is actually wrong with her? We know what is wrong with her in terms of criminality, or at least we know some of it, but we need to know much more about this, before she is allowed into the White House, not her and the rest of the Clinton crew. 

RT: Doesn't it seem that the mainstream media, for example, is more interested in the fact that the leak occurred rather than the content of the documents that were leaked? 

LR: You can tell, and the American media doesn’t even pretend anymore to be balanced, or to be fair. They are 100 percent in Hillary’s pocket. They are promoting Hillary; they hate her opponent; they hate anybody who says anything against her; they don’t want to say anything bad about her. When they are forced, when there is a huge story like this, they feel they have to cover it. But of course they don’t want to cover the meat of the story – they want just to talk about the extraneous material.

We shouldn’t pay any attention to that; we have to do our own reading, our own research. I hope there will be many more people weighing in on this – people who know far more than what we’ve been told so far. It is very encouraging [that] there is more to come, more about her crimes – both in terms of foreign policy and personal corruption with the very corrupt Clinton Foundation. This is all to the good, bring it all out, tell the American people; tell the whole world by the way – this woman threatens the whole world. The whole world should know what she’s done and what she’d like to do and all the crimes she’s committed.

Clinton’s ‘Don’t recall’ –phrase to legally protect something, someone 

Hillary Clinton’s claim that she doesn’t remember some things indicates that something legally is being protected, as one doesn’t say this phrase unless a person wants to protect some information, Jack Rasmus, a professor at St. Mary’s College told RT.

The FBI released the findings of its investigation into Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server to send classified information while she was US Secretary of State. 

RT: The main question is still out there. Do you think Clinton could be charged after she failed to protect top-secret information? 

Jack Rasmus: What is interesting in a report is that we have 39 instances of “don’t recall.” That usually indicates that something legally is being protected when you give depositions like that, you usually don’t make that phrase, unless there is a reason to protect someone, or something. So they would have to turn out some more information to prosecute her any further. 

Another interesting thing is you don’t destroy mobile devices in these kinds of situation, unless there is something that needs to be destroyed. Also there is reference to emails being transferred to a laptop and a thumb drive. If there is any prosecution, they would have to find a laptop, a thumb drive, and an unnamed person that is associated with the transferring of that information to the laptop and the thumb drive.

RT: FBI documents indicate that “Clinton relied on the judgment of the people that worked for her to handle information appropriately.” Is this a case of shifting responsibility? 

JR: It may, or may not be. In her role, people pretty much rely on their experts to tell them what they should, or shouldn’t do. I am sure they told her what she should, or shouldn’t do. Her answer is “I don’t recall.” Sounds like they are trying to protect some of the lower level people from having to testify or give depositions, which relates to what kind of deposition did she give. She really didn’t give a deposition. It was kind of a strange thing, where the FBI just took notes. There is nothing really verboten [forbidden] here and thus there’s no real record that she can prosecuted on. 

RT: Large parts of the report have been redacted. Does this mean the case is much more serious than Clinton has tried to make people think? 

JR: It depends on what was redacted and could very well be. You don’t redact information that is innocuous. You usually cut out something referring to a person, or something really important. It seems to imply that there was some cooperation between the interviewers and her.