What is common between Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and New York State Office of Children and Family Services? Shredgates

There is one common feature between

• the Democratic candidate for Presidential Office Hillary Clinton,
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and
• the New York State for Children and Family Services -

their adamant disregard for the public's right to know what is going on in the government and shredding evidence of their and their agencies' misconduct.

The Hillary Clinton's e-mail shredding scandal and continues to rage at this time, with

• Hillary Clinton protected by public officials as high as President Obama and the sudden support of his wife Michele Obama, by
• refusal of FBI Director James Comey to do his job and turn Hillary Clinton's case into the grand jury proceedings, by
• Loretta Lynch's Office refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton after her peculiar airport meeting with Bill Clinton (while Loretta Lynch was a law partner in a law firm representing the Clintons) and instead giving immunity to lawyers and employees of Hillary Clinton who destroyed evidence despite court orders,
• by the cowardly reaction of attorney state disciplinary authorities "waiting" for federal authorities to pursue either Hillary Clinton or her attorneys who shredded evidence sought in court in defiance of court orders - before taking any actions of their own.

Hillary Clinton actually is not alone in her e-mail shredding rampage, and she follows the tradition of New York State public officials, recently created, by the way - so Hillary Clinton has a great example to follow.

In 2015 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

(whose brother Chris Cuomo recently made waves by a claim that he and his employer the CNN, called by many the Clinton New Network, is a better interpreter of documents published by WikiLeaks, and that it is illegal for anybody to possess such publications - other than to Chris Cuomo and CNN, of course)

made his own waves by announcing a policy that the Executive branch of the State of New York will delete all e-mails older than 90 days.

Andrew Cuomo, of course, explained away and defended his policy, but nevertheless it was called a "purge" by the media, and happened at the time when

• Cuomo and his connections was investigated for his sacking of the Public Ethics ("Moreland") Commission after it turned its focus on Andrew Cuomo and his cronies,
• when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara raised the temperature of criminal corruption prosecutions by prosecuting and convicting the leaders of New York Legislature, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and when
• Preet Bharara has now arrested some employees and lobbyists close to Cuomo himself,

making Cuomo's Shredgate similar to Clinton's Shredgate.

But, prior to Cuomo's Shredgate and Clinton's Shredgate, there was a New York State Office of Children and Family Services' Shredgate from which Cuomo could take example - and Clinton could learn from Cuomo.

In 2007, NYS OCFS was sued in federal court for hiring temp workers and shredding 25,000 applications for "fair hearings" to cleanse people's "indicated reports" of child maltreatment which were pending for years - instead of two months, as required by statute - preventing people from obtaining jobs they were seeking.

Instead of any meaningful discipline in any of the three Shredgate cases, what we see is just some tongue-lashing in the press - and that is all.

Yet, there is a means of addressing such criminal conduct - filing complaints with the U.S. Attorney's office demanding criminal prosecutions of participants in such "Shredgates", and then filing writs of mandamus (federal court cases) to force the U.S. Attorney's office to turn such cases into the federal grant juries - if they refuse to do it on their own, afraid of consequences.

There is a U.S. Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) that provides:
                  

"It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation."

So, whether the U.S. Attorney General deems feasible bringing criminal proceedings against high-ranking public officials like Cuomo or Clinton, or President Obama who, it appears, knowingly sent e-mails to Hillary Clinton's unprotected private server,

if "any other person" complains to the U.S. Attorney General and requests the U.S. Attorney General to turn such information against Hillary Clinton, her shred-happy employees, President Obama, Andrew Cuomo and any other shred-happy public officials,

18 U.S.C. 3332(a) requires the U.S. Attorney General to present the complaint, on the complainant's request, to a federal grand jury.

And, if the U.S. Attorney refuses to do her duty under this statute, a writ of mandamus remedy (a lawsuit in federal court seeking to make the U.S. Attorney comply with the statute and present the case to the federal grand jury) is available.

I wonder why nobody is filing such a criminal complaint or such a writ of mandamus action.

Afraid of the all-powerful Clintons and their financial supporters?

But, since there is a long statute of limitations for federal felonies, Hillary Clinton and her Shredgate helpers may remain on the hook for criminal prosecutions for a long time, even if she is elected President of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we have a choice between a presidential candidate of questionable fitness such as Trump and a candidate of unquestionable unfitness such as Hillary Clinton.

Yet, where there is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, and especially a crime against national security, the person and his accomplices must be prosecuted as a criminal, no matter the rank, if this country has any hope of being respected by its own citizens and in the international community alike, as a country governed by the rule of law.