Hillary said bank executives need to be held accountable, including facing jail time for any crimes committed. She continued by reminding us that the public is often critical that while banks have been fined heavily for excesses, individual bankers were not punished.
Hillary and I have a different definition of excesses. She believes the banker should be held responsible for the lies the lenders told on their applications while I believe it is the liar that should be held responsible. We do agree that the “rule of law” applies to all. This concept of “rule of law” should apply to those in the financial industry, the medical industry, the world of technology, and those in government.
This would mean that if an individual, be it somebody from the Department of Homeland Security, The Department of Justice including the Attorney General, The IRS including the Commissioner, or the State Department including the current or former Secretary of State, went before Congress and lied or intentionally misled and withheld information, they should face jail time. They would have broken the law. The law applies to those representing departments of the government as well as individuals working within the department.
Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.
That would mean if an individual, regardless of who that individual might be, made a false statement to a Federal Investigator they could face jail time. Ask Martha Stewart.
By its plain terms, § 1001 (as it existed before it was amended in October 1996), broadly reaches "[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . .makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations. . . ."
That would mean if an individual who had access to classified information did not maintain it properly, they could be prosecuted and face jail time. Ask General Petraeus.
At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
Yes, Hillary and I agree that nobody is above the law. That means Lois Learner, John Koskinen, James Clapper, Eric Holder, and yes, Hillary Clinton should all have been indicted by a fair and impartial Department of Justice. It would be up to a jury of their peers to decide as to whether or not these individuals would be acclaimed guilty and face proper sentencing. Since Hillary and I both agree the “rule of law” should be applied to all regardless of position, Hillary and I agree she should be indicted and face a trial for her alleged crimes just like the bankers.