Among the foremost threats to individual freedom in America is the abusive and oftentimes lawless behavior…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
More Legal Shenanigans from the Biden Administration’s Department of Education

Among the foremost threats to individual freedom in America is the abusive and oftentimes lawless behavior of federal administrative agencies, whose vast armies of overpaid bureaucrats remain unaccountable for their excesses.

Among the most familiar examples of that bureaucratic abuse is the Department of Education (DOE).  Recall, for instance, the United States Supreme Court’s humiliating rebuke last year of the Biden DOE’s effort to shift hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt from the people who actually owed them onto the backs of American taxpayers.

Even now, despite that rebuke, the Biden DOE launched an alternative scheme last month in an end-around effort to achieve that same result.

Well, the Biden DOE is now attempting to shift tens of millions of dollars of…[more]

March 18, 2024 • 03:11 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Hillary's Never-ending White Bronco Chase Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, September 15 2016
The simple fact is that their 'you have no smoking gun' rationalization constitutes a smoking gun in and of itself.

Throughout Bill and Hillary Clintons' four decades of public life, their apologists have met every new scandal with the same alibi ad nauseam:  You have no direct proof of guilt. 

In some cases, of course, that defense was subsequently refuted with direct evidence.  As just one example, recall the revelation of Monica Lewinsky's blue dress following Hillary's "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" debacle.  And fast-forwarding to just this week, grainy video footage directly refuted Team Hillary's ongoing campaign to delegitimize all questions regarding her health. 

More often, though, evidence of Clintonian malfeasance has remained the more murky, suspicious variety.  To the Clintons and their overextended army of apologists, that somehow suggests their innocence. 

In our judicial system as well as the court of public opinion, however, the Clintons' trademark evasions and suspicious behavior toward relevant evidence create an inference of guilt. 

The simple fact is that their "you have no smoking gun" rationalization constitutes a smoking gun in and of itself. 

First, there's the legal doctrine of "spoliation of evidence." 

Under centuries-old law, spoliation simply refers to when evidence relevant to a legal question is intentionally altered, concealed or destroyed.  Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled "Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery, Sanctions," specifically prohibits such conduct.  In fact, Rule 37 directly addresses electronic forms of evidence such as Hillary's emails and private server: 

(e)  Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information:  If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court: 

 (1)  upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may  order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice;  or 
 (2)  only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another  party of the information's use in the litigation may: 
 (a)  presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; 
 (b)  instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was    unfavorable to the party;  or 
 (c)  dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. 

In addition to Rule 37, Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519, also prohibits destruction of evidence or assisting others in destroying evidence, and provides for criminal prosecution of wrongdoers, up to 20 years in prison and heavy punitive fines.  Private tort actions against wrongdoers are also permitted under law. 

In other words, mishandling evidence creates an inference against the misbehaving party.  Which stands to reason, since concealment or alteration demonstrates that the person possessed a consciousness of guilt, and it would be unfair not to draw the appropriate conclusion therefrom. 

Applying the law to Hillary Clinton makes her pattern of spoliation obvious.  Not only has she failed to preserve evidence and information as Rule 37 demands, she has actively eliminated it. 

According to the FBI, for example, she used some 13 separate mobile devices over the years to access her homebrew email server.  If for no other reason than historical preservation for a future library, not to mention in the event of official need as has come to pass, one would presume that those devices would have been securely preserved.  Instead, the FBI revealed that her aides intentionally destroyed those devices with hammers. 

And where in the world, after all this time, are the actual, physical server or servers she used during her official tenure as Secretary of State? 

Beyond spoliation of evidence, federal law more broadly provides that, "Evidence of flight, in appropriate circumstances, is a relevant circumstance evidencing consciousness of guilt."  As a federal Court of Appeals held in U.S. v. Hernandez-Bermudez (1988), "Evidence of an accused's flight may be admitted at trial as indicative of a guilty mind."  

Hillary's flight, of both the recent and habitual variety, has obviously been more metaphorical than literal.  Nevertheless, her longstanding pattern of evasive behavior creates an inference of guilt. 

Although some may find it depressing that she continually manages to escape prosecution under law, they should take heart.  The rationalization that direct evidence of her guilt always seems to miraculously disappear exonerates her doesn't just contravene established law, it has eroded her public approval.   

Hillary's decades of evasion, flight and spoliation of evidence doesn't absolve her.  It indicts her.  And judging by her political standing and public esteem, she's paying the price. 

Notable Quote   
 
"It's a rematch.President Biden and former President Trump each hit a key marker last week, clinching enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee of their respective party.The outcome of the general election will come down to a handful of states, as usual.The map maintained by The Hill and Decision Desk HQ lists seven contests as toss-ups."Read the entire article here.…[more]
 
 
— Niall Stanage, The Hill
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you support or oppose a government-imposed U.S. ban of TikTok?