In this enlightened age of acceptance and tolerance it is becoming rare to find high level officials in the United States who still support the death sentence as an appropriate punishment for criminal activities. Former Secretary of State and Democrat Presidential Nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of those select few who still express the opinion that the death penalty is justified in cases of extremely crimes, particularly at the federal level. Does that mean she would sentence herself to death for her part in high level corruption as well, or would she turn a blind eye? In this article we take a look at Hillary Clinton’s public assertions on the death penalty issue and discuss some of the questionable activities she herself has allegedly been involved in to determine if she, by her own actions and admissions, would recommend the death sentence upon herself.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton served as the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 under President Barrack Obama. She is also a former First Lady, having served in that role from 1993 to 2001 while her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. In July of 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton was announced as the Democratic Party’s Nominee for the office of President of the United States.
During her career in public office, both in official roles and unofficial, Mrs Clinton has expressed an opinion against the death sentence for crimes at state level but saying it is justified in more serious crimes, especially those at federal level. The following excerpt is from an article featured on “The Intercept” website on March 18, 2016…
“You know, this is such a profoundly difficult question,” she began. “And what I have said — and what I continue to believe — is that the states have proven themselves incapable of carrying out fair trials that give any defendant all of the rights a defendant should have, all of the support that the defendant’s lawyer should have. And I have said I would breathe a sigh of relief if either the Supreme Court or the states, themselves, began to eliminate the death penalty.”
But then she pivoted. “Where I end up is this — and maybe it’s a distinction that is hard to support — but at this point, given the challenges we face from terrorist activities, primarily in our country, that end up under federal jurisdiction, for very limited purposes I think that it can still be held in reserve for those.” Invoking the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11, Clinton said, “That is really the exception that I still am struggling with.”
Clinton has been honing this response since at least November, when she tempered her long-held support for the death penalty at a Democratic forum by saying it should be reserved for “really heinous crimes,” mostly at the federal level. There, too, she criticized the states — “predominantly but not exclusively in the South” — for hastily seeking death sentences. And there, too, she said she would “breathe a sigh of relief” if the death penalty was abolished — in this case, by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that it is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Clinton struck the same note at a Democratic debate last month, telling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “I deeply disagree with the way that too many states are still implementing” the death penalty. “I have much more confidence in the federal system,” she said.
“If it were possible to separate the federal from the state system by the Supreme Court,” Clinton added, confusingly, “that would, I think, be an appropriate outcome.”
If it’s hard to imagine how the Court might strike down the death penalty for states but not the federal government, this is just one problem with Clinton’s hedging on capital punishment. It is emblematic of Clinton as a politician that she has managed to stake out a position that lets her have it both ways while costing her absolutely nothing: vague semi-opposition to the death penalty at the state level (for which she would bear no direct responsibility as president), paired with confident support for executions at the federal level — the only realm in which opposing the death penalty could have any practical impact.
Apart from being slippery and convoluted, Clinton’s stance also happens to rest on a view of the death penalty that is both outdated and misleading. Worse, she has decided to perpetuate the insidious notion that the death penalty can be reserved for the “worst of the worst” — a myth that has been debunked again and again. Source – The Intercept
So it is clear that Hillary Clinton endorses the use of the death penalty as a punishment for the most serious crimes against the nation. Which poses the next question: do her own alleged crimes fall into that category?
During an FBI investigation into Mrs Clinton’s use of a private email server for the sending of private and official correspondence, it was claimed not only that her unsecured, private email server, which was located in the basement of her home, had indeed been used to store, send and receive a number of classified documents and emails, but also that she had lied to congress under oath several times, in an attempt to mislead congress and, by extrapolation, the American public. If proven, these claims add up to perjury, a felony which carries a prison sentence of up to five years. Serious indeed, but not quite the level of criminal activity that, by Hillary Clinton’s own admission, would justify a death penalty.
So are there more serious crimes that Hillary Clinton may be guilty of, that may carry the death sentence? Perhaps some illegal activities that may be the subject of some of Hillary’s private emails themselves? Is there any evidence of crimes against the nation so great that Hillary herself would justify a penalty of death for? Some analysts would say so. But first, let’s take a look at the type of crimes that do allow for the death sentence under Federal Law.
|8 U.S.C. 1342||Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.|
|18 U.S.C. 32-34||Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death.|
|18 U.S.C. 36||Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting.|
|18 U.S.C. 37||Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation.|
|18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
|Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials.|
|18 U.S.C. 241,
242, 245, 247
|Civil rights offenses resulting in death.|
|18 U.S.C. 351
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
|Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice.|
|18 U.S.C. 794||Espionage.|
|18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i)||Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce.|
|18 U.S.C. 924(i)||Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime.|
|18 U.S.C. 930||Murder committed in a Federal Government facility.|
|18 U.S.C. 1091||Genocide.|
|18 U.S.C. 1111||First-degree murder.|
|18 U.S.C. 1114||Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official.|
|18 U.S.C. 1116||Murder of a foreign official.|
|18 U.S.C. 1118||Murder by a Federal prisoner.|
|18 U.S.C. 1119||Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country.|
|18 U.S.C. 1120||Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment.|
|18 U.S.C. 1121||Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer.|
|18 U.S.C. 1201||Murder during a kidnapping.|
|18 U.S.C. 1203||Murder during a hostage taking.|
|18 U.S.C. 1503||Murder of a court officer or juror.|
|18 U.S.C. 1512||Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant.|
|18 U.S.C. 1513||Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim, or informant.|
|18 U.S.C. 1716||Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death.|
|18 U.S.C. 1751
to 18 U.S.C. 1111]
|Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President.|
|18 U.S.C. 1958||Murder for hire.|
|18 U.S.C. 1959||Murder involved in a racketeering offense.|
|18 U.S.C. 1992||Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.|
|18 U.S.C. 2113||Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping.|
|18 U.S.C. 2119||Murder related to a carjacking.|
|18 U.S.C. 2245||Murder related to rape or child molestation.|
|18 U.S.C. 2251||Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.|
|18 U.S.C. 2280||Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation.|
|18 U.S.C. 2281||Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform.|
|18 U.S.C. 2332||Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country.|
|18 U.S.C. 2332a||Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.|
|18 U.S.C. 2340||Murder involving torture.|
|18 U.S.C. 2381||Treason.|
|21 U.S.C. 848(e)||Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.|
|49 U.S.C. 1472-1473||Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.|
Source – Death Penalty Info
Please note that the above table may not be an exhaustive list of all crimes punishable by death under federal law.
From the table we see that most of the crimes punishable under Federal Law with the death penalty relate to various types of murder, plus a few additional crimes including espionage and treason. It is the latter two that we are most interested in as they relate to Hillary Clinton.
Is Hillary Clinton guilty of espionage or treason?
Before answering the question of whether or not Hillary Clinton is guilty of espionage or treason, let’s take a look at some of the evidence that may suggest wrongdoings on the part of Mrs Clinton and her husband.
The Clintons’ rapid and unexplained increase in wealth.
According to an article by Tom Gerencer which was published on MoneyNation.com on 26 July, 2016, the Clintons had a combined net worth in 1992 of $700,000. By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001 their net worth had dropped to a negative figure, and they were listed as being eight million dollars in debt. Interestingly however, is how the couple have managed to go from that level of debt to an estimated combined net worth in 2016 of $111 million.
The following excerpt is taken from that article:
- Combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth 1992: $700,000
- Combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth 2001: -$8,000,000
- Combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth 2002: $4,077,000
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2004: $30,098,000
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2005: $30,172,503
- Combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth 2006: $34,435,000
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2007: $30,820,509
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2008: $21,452,008
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2009: $31,241,007
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2010: $31,195,006
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2011: $13,130,004
- Hillary Clinton net worth 2012: $12,347,503
- Hillary Clinton Net Worth 2015: $31,265,004
- Combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth 2015: $111,000,000
The chart above shows that Hillary Clinton’s net worth doesn’t follow the same path as others in the U.S. Senate. As with other senators, Hillary Clinton’s net worth rose in the 2006/2007 period, then dropped with the stock market in 2008. However, Mrs. Clinton’s net worth then skyrocketed by about 30% in 2009. What caused this sudden jump?
2009: A Sudden Jump in Hillary Clinton’s Net Worth
In January of 2009 Mrs. Clinton left the senate to become the U.S. Secretary of State. Her salary in that job was $186,600. While that’s not exactly small, It’s only $12,600 more per year than the salary of a U.S. senator at $174,000. It hardly accounts for a $10 million hike in the Hillary Clinton net worth total the same year. Also in 2009, Clinton reported buying $5 million to $26 million in money market funds and real estate.
It’s unclear where the sudden jump in the Hillary Clinton net worth amount came from. In 2009, Mrs. Clinton wasn’t paid any of her famous six-figure speaking fees. Those payouts didn’t start until 2014. Her last book, Living History, was published in 2003. She received a record advance of $8 million for the memoir, bit that didn’t enter into 2009 Hillary Clinton net worth calculations. Her next book, Hard Choices didn’t come out until 2014. Finally, the 2008/2009 financial crisis should have decreased Clinton’s wealth. So where did the $10 million dollar jump in Hillary Clinton’s net worth in 2009 come from? It’s very difficult to say.
Another curious change to the Hillary Clinton net worth total came in 2011. In that year, Mrs. Clinton’s wealth suddenly dropped from $30 million to $13 million. That’s over 50%. There was no drop in the stock market to account for the $17 million fall in Hillary Clinton’s net worth. However, Clinton’s public reports show that in 2011, she “exchanged” $5-$25 million in investments. It’s not clear if the exchange left the money in her name or transferred it to another person. It’s common practice for politicians to place assets in a spouse’s name. Whether that’s to hide the money from public view or for some other reason isn’t openly discussed. If Mrs. Clinton transferred the money to husband Bill, it would account for $17 million disappearing from Hillary Clinton’s net worth.
Source – Money Nation
The extraordinary rise to riches of the Clintons raises questions not only in terms of their personal motivations but also as to the legality of their dealings. Keep in mind that their non-profit corporation, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has also been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from such benefactors as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (allegedly the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist Terrorism) and Blackwater Worldwide (a terrorist training organization that trains ISIS terrorists on American Soil). Whether or not these ‘donations’ have been given in exchange for direct favors is a moot point. Any reasonable mind would likely assume that such donations would not have been made if there was no reciprocating act undertaken by or on behalf of the Clintons or their Foundation.
To be clear on this point: a non profit corporation belonging to the Clintons accepts large donations from some of the world’s most prolific terrorist sponsors and training organizations that provide training and equipment to ISIS (aka Isil), in exchange for some hitherto unknown ‘favors’. Speculation on the nature of the favors abounds, but most likely these favors amount to providing conditions favorable for the continual operation of terrorist training programs and the provision of access to military equipment and technical information.
In short, it appears that the Clintons, through their Foundation, have been accepting money from terrorist organizations in exchange for political favors.
Now let’s take a look at the crime of Treason, as it applies to federal law in the United States.
Article three of the United States Constitution specifically defines the crime of treason in the following terms:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
According to Wikipedia…
However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Source – Wikipedia
In light of the above definition of treason, let’s define the relevant points:
…whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason…
Now let’s see how this statement applies to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton…
Hillary Clinton… owes allegiance to the United States… adheres to their enemies (sponsors and terrorist training organizations)…
In an article published on The Canary on 29 July, 2016 it was revealed that…
The City of Paris has struck a corporate partnership with French industrial giant, Lafarge, recently accused of secretly sponsoring the Islamic State (Isis or Daesh) for profit.
Documents obtained by several journalistic investigations reveal that Lafarge has paid taxes to the terror group to operate its cement plant in Syria, and even bought Isis oil for years…
…Lafarge also has close ties to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Apart from being a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself was a director of Lafarge in the early 1990s, and did legal work for the firm in the 1980s. During her connection to Lafarge, the firm was implicated in facilitating a CIA-backed covert arms export network to Saddam Hussein…
The article goes on to say…
…But Lafarge leads quite a charmed existence.
Among its earliest benefactors was former First Lady and current presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton.
From 1990 to 1992, Clinton served on Lafarge’s Board of Directors. Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.
Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.
In the late 1980s, according to an archived investigative report in the American Spectator, Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme.
The American Spectator report from November 1996 cited sources confirming that Hillary Clinton did legal work for Lafarge in the late 1980s before she became a director. The report also claimed that Lafarge’s US subsidiary:
provided key services for the covert arms export network that supplied Saddam Hussein. To prevent exposure of that secret supply line, and collateral damage to Hillary Clinton – who joined Lafarge board in 1990, just as the arms pipeline was being shut down… the Justice Department was told to bury the investigation… But investigators from other US government agencies who worked on the case say they were ‘waved off’ whenever they got too close to exposing the direct involvement of the intelligence community in the arms export scheme.
Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.
In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.
The company is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm’s up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015. Lafarge is also listed again as a donor to the Clinton Foundation for the first quarter of 2016.
Lafarge is a major beneficiary of disaster capitalism in Iraq, dominating a market where Iraq’s infrastructure remains in dire need of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. The company describes itself as “one of the largest non-oil investors in Iraq.”
The firm is not just an economic juggernaut. Its murky history of intelligence ties, and significant political clout in France and the US – the countries leading the airstrikes against Isis in Syria – raise the question of whether Lafarge believes it can profit from terror without accountability.
Source – The Canary
So there we have it: Hillary Rodham Clinton, former United States Secretary of State, former First Lady, and current Democratic Party Candidate for the office of President of the United States, implicit in the supply of money, training and equipment to ISIS, a sworn enemy of the United States.
Hillary Clinton: guilty of treason. A crime which, by her own admission, calls for the death penalty. It is now incumbent upon the United States Congress and the FBI to reveal the full extent of Mrs Clinton’s crimes and exact punishment on behalf of the American people.