Politics Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Withholds Draft Whitewater Indictment of Hillary Clinton

Uh, oh, more bad news for Denny's fantasy:

Linky.

barfo

 

So you cite an article about how it's good for Hiliar if her aids collude in their testimony?

That's a good one.

Quote way out of context, too.

 

HuffPost not spinning for Hiliar. It's often said that "liberals eat their own." What does human flesh taste like barfo? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm sure you will anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-pappalardo/hillary-email-probe-could_b_9579826.html

President Obama and Loretta Lynch are very likely going to have a big decision to make regarding this matter. They of course do not want to deal with this but given how secrets have a way to getting to the media in DC this is certainly not something they will be able to shove under a rug even if they were tempted to. Most likely this hot potato will be passed on by them to a Special Counsel. Hopefully, once its obvious this is not going to go away easily that Hillary will withdraw from the nomination process for president. However, even though this would be the right thing to do, is it what Hillary will do? That is quite up in the air when there are three factors in their behavior that are quite consistent. They are very selfish, they fervently believe rules and laws do not apply to them, and they are totally committed to the pay to play practices that dominate US politics.

 

USA Today weighs in.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...iers-indictment-ron-fournier-column/82420266/

Glenn Reynolds: Hillary's delusional media courtiers

The United States Constitution provides that “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.” But somebody needs to explain this to the courtiers in the Washington press corps.

The latest offender is National Journal reporter Ron Fournier, who — discussing the possibility of Hillary Clinton being indicted for her secret private server and mishandling of highly classified information — observed on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "Legally though, there's a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president. … I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar you have to get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes. ... Politically, there are severe questions about her judgment that voters really have to look into. Legally … there is a higher bar you have to get over before you prosecute somebody who is running for president. That's just a fact."

In response, host Joe Scarborough asked, “In what statute is that?”

 

Actually, it's not out of context at all, and it's by an anti-Hillary clown. You know, one of your heroes.

barfo

 

Pork. Thanks for asking.

barfo

 

So you agree with right wing talking heads? Or only when it's convenient?

His quote is out of context. He more likely is implying the Obama administration is burying the case, covering up for her. They are not serious if they intend to cover it up.

 

DiGenova. News story published the same day as yours.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/prosec...espionage-act-charges-in-clinton-email-probe/

Prosecutor in Pollard Spy Case Predicts Espionage Act Charges in Clinton Email Probe


“No honest FBI will ever not [recommend] criminal charges in this case,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova said during an event hosted by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “There are going to be referrals for a series of criminal charges involving violations of the espionage statutes, the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, the grossly negligent storage of classified information.”

...

“[The FBI] may not recommend felonies, as a courtesy to a woman who was the first lady for eight years, a senator and the secretary of state,” diGenova said. “They may as a courtesy try to do what they did with General Petraeus, and recommend misdemeanors. But make no mistake, they are going to recommend that she and others be charged with crimes.”

 

There you go with the predicted conspiracy theory. Congratulations on working it in only 13 posts after I predicted it.

If that's what he's implying, fine. Doesn't change my point that he's saying she's not going to be indicted. You can spin conspiracy theories about why not all you want.

barfo

 

It's your theory. You're the diGenova fan.

You seem satisfied that the political class is above the law. Nixon needed more people like you.