Veteran defense lawyers see possible criminal inquiry for Clintons

From:,  by: James Rosen,  on: April 25, 2015,  see the article HERE.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton shouts out to college students after speaking during the Hillary Rodham Clinton Award for Advancing Women in Peace and Security at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, April 22, 2015. AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB        (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Hillary shouts at the gaggle of reporters yelling questions at her; “STFU” is not the response they hoped for.

With a sitting Democratic senator recently indicted on federal bribery and corruption charges, top criminal defense lawyers in the nation’s capital say Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton could conceivably face similar scrutiny, amid mounting disclosures about the tangled finances of her family’s philanthropic foundation.

The new book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, an investigative reporter affiliated with the right-leaning Hoover Institution, has unleashed a torrent of conflict-of-interest allegations relating to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s own conduct during her tenure, from 2009 to 2013, as secretary of state.

Particular scrutiny – by Fox News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times – has focused on why the State Department, under Clinton’s leadership, green-lighted a foreign transaction that enriched major donors to the foundation while placing an estimated 20 percent of America’s stockpile of uranium – the fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons -under the control of a Kremlin-backed Russian firm.

It was, moreover, shortly after the uranium deal went through that former President Bill Clinton nailed down a $500,000 fee for a speaking event in Moscow.

“There’s certainly smoke there,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLC, who has long experience handling financial and public integrity cases. “The question’s going to be whether or not she took any official action in exchange for those donations. If she did, I think there is going to be a high, high likelihood of additional scrutiny, either from Capitol Hill or from the Department of Justice itself.”

Burns likened the known fact setting in the Clinton controversies to that which led to the federal indictment, earlier this month, of Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ, who stands accused of performing favors for a well-connected Democratic donor in exchange for pricey gifts. Menendez has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.

“If the facts suggest that there was a linkage between what Secretary Clinton did in her official capacity and the money that was coming into the Clinton Foundation,” Burns said, “this would fall under 18 U.S.C. 201 as a potential bribery violation.”

That statute provides that a bribe has occurred, among other circumstances, whenever “a public official directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official.”

C. Boyden Gray, who served as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush, told Fox News the money that linked the uranium deal to the Clintons and their foundation “is very hard to dissect from the personal,” and creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly “when one of them is in office and money is coming in, in connection with issues over which that person in office has jurisdiction and responsibility.”

Gray added that Clinton is “not protected by the fact that her husband may have taken money … spouses’ interests are attributed to each other and that is no excuse or defense.”

In the tangle of cases brought to light by the book “Clinton Cash,” no one associated with the Clinton Foundation has been formally accused of wrongdoing. Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, told Fox News there is no evidence tying Hillary Clinton to the State Department’s approval of the uranium deal, and argued her critics are seeking to tarnish her 2016 presidential campaign on the basis of “inferences.”

“The people on that process — on that board — nine agencies approved the [uranium] deal, and the individual from State said he never heard from Mrs. Clinton,” Davis told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum on “America’s Newsroom” Friday. “There’s no evidence that President Clinton, that I’ve seen yet, tried to influence any decision by any governmental agency.”

The Clintons, at any rate, are veterans of this terrain. In addition to her husband becoming the first president to be impeached – and ultimately acquitted – in over a century, in 1996 Hillary Clinton became the First Lady to testify before a grand jury.


The Clinton Crime Family (La Costa Lotta) has led a charmed life. They’ve managed to use their time-honored 3D defense to keep them out of trouble (deny, deflect, and destroy). In truth, they’ve been aided by the “old” media who have run interference for them by burying stories that would be detrimental, publishing supportive pieces, and generally destroying anyone who was accusing the Clintons of wrongdoing.

But, all that has changed. In the past few days, the New York Times and the Washington Post (not exactly members of the “vast right wing conspiracy”) have expanded on stories about the Clinton Foundation and possible quid pro quo activities surrounding Bill’s speeches, large contributions to their Foundation, and State Department approvals of arrangements that benefitted their friends and Foundation donors. The sharks are circling and they smell blood in the water. 

The audacity of these people is simply astounding. They think that they are so much smarter than we are and because of that, they are untouchable – the laws don’t apply to them. They are entitled to become our leaders because they know best what’s good for us – after all, we’re just “ordinary,” while they’re extraordinary.

It’s disgusting and I hope that they finally get what’s coming to them. And as much as I’d like to see them in chains, I’ll be satisfied to see indictments handed down – that alone should prove fatal to Hillary’s dream of becoming President Clinton II.


Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Veteran defense lawyers see possible criminal inquiry for Clintons

  1. Hardnox says:

    “La Costa Lotta”… love it!

    I think Hildabeast will look good in orange.

  2. Kathy says:

    Should the leaders in Congress grow a spine and pursue an indictment, lucky for Hillary they just confirmed Eric Holder’s near-twin sister as head of the DoJ, so rest assured any investigation will take eons to complete.

    It’s my guess that she went through a chain of command in the State Dept and kept her distance just enough to keep it from coming directly back to her.

    I’m with you guys – I’d love to see her in orange, but they’ve been at this game far too long and she’s too close now to get caught. Boy, oh boy, do I hope I’m wrong!

    • Garnet92 says:

      Ordinarily, the Clintons would be all for delaying long enough for the charges to become “old news,” but Gowdy’s Benghazi stuff can be trickled out for the next year or so and the shelf life for the Clinton Cash revelations can go on for months. In either case, I’m ready to call her “OUT.” I not only think that she won’t be POTUS, I don’t believe that she’ll be the dem’s nominee.

      YOU READ IT HERE, FOLKS! As soon as she and Bill are convinced that she can’t win, she’ll bow out for “health reasons.” I give her three months max.

      • Kathy says:

        Wow! That’s quite a limb you went out on, Garnet. I’ll mark that on my calendar and drinks are on me if you’re right!

        As I said before, I hope you’re right. For one thing, whoever replaces her will be easier to beat, assuming the RNC doesn’t pick Jeb as our guy.

    • Buck says:

      Remember, Kathy, the “Teflon Don” was untouchable as was Al Capone. Both pikers when compared to the Clinton Duo but evidence the mighty can fall, from time to time.

  3. vonMesser says:

    My question/concern is this:

    1. Is the media going after her now3, so that in a year they can say “Look, we’re impartial and honest. We investigated the hell out of this and there is nothing to see.”

    2. If #1 is NOT the goal, then WHO is the media supporting?

    • Garnet92 says:

      VM, that question came up on Rush’s Friday show and I wouldn’t write it off as possible – it was suggested that the media might prefer Fauxcahontas.

      • Buck says:

        Right. Notice ever since Warren said she wouldn’t run if Hillary was going to run the MSM has gradually turned on Hillary? Not too much at one time but incrementally so.

  4. upaces88 says: