De Facto Mob Rule in a Republic, Immunity From Prosecution, and a Defeat of Criminal Justice

If you had been an ordinary rank-and-file resident of Chicago in the 1920s, when Al Capone was mob boss of the city and FBI Agent Elliot Ness was attempting to bring him and his underworld organization to justice (arrest, prosecution, trail, and conviction) for bootlegging, murder, extortion, and many other capital crimes, would you have voted for Capone if he had run for the office of Chicago Mayor? What would you have done if mayoral candidate Capone had delivered, through one of his messengers, an envelope to you containing five hundred dollars and a note saying, “I’d appreciate your vote” or “Better vote for me, or else”?

Well, the current and very comparable situation surrounding the criminal conduct of a former U.S. Secretary of State (who is also, strangely enough, the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee), and the ample evidence proving that that person lied and suborned perjury in sworn testimony before Congress, is quite enough to establish a criminal indictment against that former Secretary of State and subsequent prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice. The facts have been clearly established that show incontrovertibly that emails classified top-secret, or for exclusive eyes only, were received by, and conveyed to, improper parties (very possibly subversive foreign nationals) by that political appointee through an illegitimate private email-server during the time of that person’s service as U.S. Secretary of State.

Moreover, that former-Secretary of State’s top-aide, who actually set-up and maintained the private email server in one of the houses owned by that political appointee, has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination even after the Justice Department granted him immunity from prosecution for what he did on behalf of the former-Secretary of State. The 114th Congress has called this former top State Department aide to testify about the actions of the former Secretary of State, but the aide has stated that he will continue to refuse to offer testimony to Congress on the grounds that what he would truthfully say would be self-incriminating, or would constitute criminal grounds for an indictment (it makes him appear as dirty as sin, doesn’t it?) Yet, still, when offered with total immunity from prosecution by the Justice Department for an honest testimony, during a concurrent federal lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch regarding the classified emails sent and received by the former-Secretary of State, the aide has tried to make a deal with the presiding judge that the details of his proffered testimony not made public until after November 30, or until after the Presidential election. Why would the top-aide stipulate this as a condition for simply telling the truth if, in some way, public disclosure of his truthful testimony would not seriously damage the possibility of the Democratic Presidential nominee being elected? This would also make it appear that the top-aide might have received an envelope from a messenger of his former boss containing a monetary incentive for bargaining with the judge; or, perhaps, a note saying “for your own good, beware of what you say.” Another salient factor in the former Secretary of State’s email dilemma is the fact that security experts have testified before Congress that forty-seven (47) of the 55,000 emails that the former Secretary of State turned over to the U.S. State Department from her private server contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which means that they were classified material that was referred to the CIA regarding the personnel matters of CIA operatives. This means that there was great probability that the lives of covert operatives were placed in jeopardy because of the Secretary of State’s criminal culpability.

So, here we have a former political appointee, presumptive criminal, and Democratic Presidential nominee who has deviously persuaded, through sophistry and lies, a sizable portion of the American Democratic electorate that she is not culpable in any way of the high crimes of which she has been accused; and is currently prancing around the nation conducting herself in a capricious carefree manner showing no remorse for what she did. Do you see any apparent similarity between this former U.S. Secretary of State and the capricious Al Capone, the de facto mob leader of Chicago during the 1920’s, who, they say, had the Chicago City government in the palm of his hand? What I haven’t, yet, mentioned in this essay are the facts that clearly show that, just like Al Capone had his dirty hands in many criminal enterprises, the former Secretary of State was also integrally involved, through criminal negligence, in the deaths of the four Americans shot by terrorists, on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, as adduced through an intense, entirely different, congressional investigation.

Hence, here you are, an ordinary rank-and-file American voter, deciding for whom you will cast your ballot for U.S. President in November 2016. If you surely wouldn’t have voted for Al Capone, as mayor of Chicago, during the 1920s, would you even consider voting for a presumptive criminal, such as the former U.S. Secretary of State and the Democratic Presidential nominee, to be U.S. President? I know you would ultimately decide not to do it!