Crosstalk: October 19, 2016

While the media seems obsessed with old Donald Trump audio recordings from 2005, at the same time very little coverage has been given to the coverage of the barrage of WikiLeaks releases, the Clinton e-mails or mails from those closely linked to Secretary Clinton.

Some 32,000 e-mails were deleted. Instead of covering the content of those e-mails, the media seems more concerned with who hacked the e-mails.

Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Robert Romano. Robert is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Robert began by making a comparison between what took place in Watergate and what we do know concerning Secretary Clinton and the e-mail scandal. In Watergate, President Nixon was tying to withhold tapes from Congress because Congress had subpoenaed them. Congress wanted those tapes because they believed Nixon was complicit in having obstructed justice regarding the break-in of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.

A staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee was Hillary Rodham. She argued in a draft memo that Nixon couldn't invoke the doctrine of executive privilege pursuant to congressional subpoenas. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed, therefore it was determined that Nixon could not reject a congressional subpoena.

Robert believes it must have been a shock to Secretary Clinton when WikiLeaks released an e-mail from John Podesta (Clinton's presidential campaign chairman), pursuant to her private e-mail server, where Podesta was wondering if any e-mails from President Obama to Congress should be withheld. He was arguing that e-mails from the president to the secretary come under executive privilege which is the very argument that Clinton rejected when she was working with the Watergate committee.

Robert went on to note that there are 18 e-mails between Clinton and Obama that are missing that the State Department has commented on. The subpoena came on March 4th and according to WikiLeaks we know which e-mails they were discussing that they wanted to delete. Weeks later they were allegedly using BleachBit to destroy the e-mail servers that were under subpoena. Even the FBI agreed to destroy Clinton staffer laptops after they also agreed to only look at e-mails up to January 31, 2015. Why would the Justice Department agree to that? Why did they destroy the evidence afterward? This would appear to be obstruction of justice.

Jim commented that perhaps President Obama wasn't aware that Secretary Clinton was using a private server. Robert believes he did know and that he was using a pseudonym. You can tell from the domain name that it wasn't going to 'state.gov' and that instead mail was going to Secretary Clinton's private server. This means President Obama lied yet he came out publicly and said he learned about it by reading the news when he was aware of it the entire time.

What was in those exchanges? One can only wonder, but since the Clinton e-mails were destroyed after the congressional subpoena was issued, that means we have destruction of evidence in a federal case that was under FBI investigation. In addition, the Justice Department was complicit in it.

So now we have FBI agents coming forward and communicating that James Comey lied concerning the unanimity of FBI agents who supposedly exonerated Secretary Clinton. Robert indicated that the FBI agents apparently thought there was a good case to be brought against her. Now there's complaining that the case didn't go to a grand jury to discuss the evidence, the fact that her house was never searched and other steps that normally would have been taken in a case that rises to this level. Apparently some of these steps were avoided as a favor to Secretary Clinton.

So where is the mainstream media on this case, the same media that was instrumental in bringing down President Nixon? This is just one of many questions permeating the air as election day draws closer. Join Jim and Robert as they attempt to bring as much clarity as possible to this multi-faceted scandal.