27 thoughts on “Hillary Couldn’t Be Proven Guilty”

  1. Unfortunately for her, and maybe him; the fix wasn’t sufficient. Prosecutorial discretion is not the same as being exonerated in court. She’s never been tried, so a new prosecutor can attempt to prove her guilt. I doubt anyone would have done so, had she gone away quietly.

    1. That is the thing. Obama, or Trump, can decide who does and doesn’t get prosecuted. Its a blind spot in our checks and balances. It wouldn’t matter if we had ethical leadership but we didn’t during the Obama years. Ethics is just colonialism and needs to be rediscovered from a marxist paradigm. (Or whatever mumbo jumbo they go on about on college campuses today)

      Had there ever been enough transparency, especially from the media, that the public knew what took place and demanded Hillary be held accountable, Obama would have pardoned her. But that would look bad, so they carefully crafted a deceit, a rigged investigation. Then they put those same people in charge of investigating Trump.

      1. People say now that if she had won, none of this would have come out. I think that had she and her pals in the FBI accepted the loss for what it was; none of this would have come out.

        1. Exactly right.

          The Progressive Left is always yammering on about “being on the right side of history” or “bending the arc of history”, as if their ascendency is inevitable. Yet they are constantly in a hurry, and never seem to consider the short term consequences of their actions.

          In this case, if they actually believed all the lies they were telling, they could have just waited Trump out as he totally self destructed, and ended up with majorities in congress at the end of this year. Instead, they got impatient and threw a tantrum which forced all of this to slowly leak out.

          Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.

    1. I think Trump may turn the other cheek. If for no other reason than the various criminal investigations and adjudications will detract from his agenda.

      However, Republicans, who aren’t that interested I Trump’s agenda, might find this a fun sport and perhaps advantage heading into the midterms. I think we will have to see what happens when information is officially put out there and town halls begin.

  3. We knew all this 8 months ago and more. Let’s get it done.

    Although not a laughing matter, imagine her claim of innocents being that he was never really legally president? That’d be a hoot to see.

    However, the real issue is how America could elect someone with his past (the non hidden parts should have been sufficient.) They were criminals, but the issue is what happened to the American people?

    The only satisfying fix would be the largest firing squad for treason the world has ever seen… probably on an industrial production line for about a year. I’d start with management in every govt. office with lawmen or lawyers in it (how many could that possibly be?)

    Be glad I have no power. I’d use it in a heartbeat in this case.

    1. I’d be happy with the corrupt Democrats that work for the government losing their jobs and being banned from public “service” for life.

      1. The problem with just banning them is the billions they’ve already stole and the mischief they will continue to use it foe. There’s a reason treason carries a death penalty. It’s no time to go soft.

  4. Andrew C. McCarthy, the author of the article linked above by Rand, wrote last May about the President’s reported disclosure of sensitive information to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during their 2017-05-10 Oval Office meeting, saying “Trump’s disclosure was certainly not illegal. The president is in charge of classified information. He has unreviewable authority to disclose it himself and to authorize executive-branch subordinates to disclose it.”

    It’s a poor excuse to say it isn’t illegal just because it’s the president doing it, but it does apply to both men.

    1. Presidents regularly share classified information with other countries though. And the accusation didn’t come from people in the room but 2nd or 3rd hand.

      I am surprised that Democrats didn’t say Trump broke the law by telling the Russians about an impending terror attack a while back.

      1. Truman mentioned the fact that we had successfully tested a weapon of unusual destructive force to Joseph Stalin in Potsdam on July 25 1945, after Stalin had agreed to join the war in the Pacific. It was, of course, the atomic bomb, having been first tested on July 16 of that year.

        The Manhattan Project was the most highly classified program the United States had ever undertaken. But Truman revealed it to Stalin in a side conversation. It should be noted that Stalin showed no sign of surprise – he already knew everything about it from the spies he had planted in the project.

    2. I agree that prosecuting Obama for releasing classified information is a difficult task. It is sort of like prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice for firing the head of the FBI. They both have the authority to do so.

      Where I think Obama may be in trouble is if he assisted in Hillary Co. in obstructing justice. It seems to me, he had to know about the unmasking of Flynn, hence his lame duck regulation change allowing such intelligence to be shared across agencies. It gave Strzok cover to do the things he did. And Strzok’s role in the email investigation and collusion investigation ties both of those activities together in altogether different kind of collusion.

      Alas, I think many will steer clear of legal charges against Obama, and if they go after Hillary, they’ll be content with sullying Obama’s legacy.

  5. The link emphasizes just how corrupt the Obama administration was. No one used their work email for doing business. An entire shadow communications network was set up to allow the administration to operate outside of freedom of information act requests and also shielded their scheming from judicial and congressional investigations.

    We know that Loretta Lynch, that lady at the EPA, and Lerner all used secret email accounts. There are probably more examples I am forgetting and if it is so common with people who corresponded to with Obama, then its likely every person who corresponded with him did the same.

  6. I recall the speculation that the fix was in due to Obama’s complicity from well before Comey’s famous presser. And well before McCarthy’s columns. It was on WMAL in DC quite frequently. I don’t think this is any kind of a surprise.

    However, the one thing about which I am really outraged is the treatment of classified information. Obama said “Well, there’s classified, and then there’s classified.” Prior to the election, a number of people I know who were a) Hillary supporters, and b) holders of the highest security clearances one could possibly have, say exactly the same thing.

    As far as I’m concerned, anyone who says what Obama did should have his or her clearance revoked immediately. It flies in the face of absolutely all of the training we receive, annually, regarding the handling of classified. But worse, it shows that there are people who put their preference for one candidate over another above national security. That is even worse than placing the desire for monetary enrichment over national security. One can at least understand getting rich as a motive. But electing a particular candidate? How on earth can that be a sufficient motive to ditch all of the training, not to mention the sworn duty to preserve the integrity of classified information? I just don’t get this.

    1. MfK> “As far as I’m concerned, anyone who says what Obama did should have his or her clearance revoked immediately.”

      Of course the President it not subject to a security screening and does not hold a security clearance. This was fortunate for the prospective office holders as I doubt that either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump would have been able to obtain one on their own merits in 2016.

  7. The good news is they defined a new corruption index. Telling secrets to enemies vs. telling secrets to your own citizens.

    Enemies can be trusted with secrets but those darn voters can not be.

    The proof of all the things the dems do is to list all the things they say Trump isn’t allowed.

    1. They were keeping secrets from their enemies. Who just happened to also be the citizens of this country.

      It never occurred to these super-elite geniuses that they might not be in charge at some point, so they got really sloppy and stupid. (Or they were always sloppy and stupid, and assumed that being in power was sufficient to keep them in power.)

  8. OK, that article is a year and a half old. Now that there is a new administration, is there a possibility of prosecuting both of them?

  10. Michael> “is there a possibility of prosecuting both of them?”

    [2016-11-22 — DJT interview with the NTY]
    DJT: “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t. She went through a lot. And suffered greatly in many different ways. And I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious. They say it was the most vicious primary and the most vicious campaign.” …
    Q: “Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation — you will not pursue either one of those?”
    DJT: “Yeah, look, you know we’ll have people that do things but my inclination would be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let’s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc.”

    I know he was really saying that it was all just campaign rhetoric that never really meant anything, but “This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam.” sounds as if he is channeling the Democratic line where Ms. Clinton is the most investigated person in history without finding any wrongdoing, etc.

    But anyhow, since then Mr. Trump has learned that he doesn’t have as much power as he expected to discontinue investigations. What is the status of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s action on the email investigation? His final report is still expected soon, isn’t it? If he decides the FBI made errors in their actions related the this case, then they should certainly pick it back up.

  11. I’m not following this stuff. I had understood that the President has a complete unfettered ability to un-classify whatever he chooses. Part of his job. The security folks run around before and afterwards cleaning up as best they can, but he can reveal what he sees fit.
    So none of this can be a crime for him, stupid and negligent as it may be.

    1. The issue isn’t whether the president chooses to declassify something, but the fact that he was discussing classified information on an unsecure channel. It was certainly a crime for her, and in order to convict her, it would inevitably show he was doing that, which is at the least irresponsible.

    1. Likely he hopes he won’t get reassigned and demoted before getting his full in-grade retirement in March. Hopefully that will be amended before March. I’d love to see his retirement become something akin to that received by a lifer GS-1.

      1. He’s getting his full retirement. He has enough sick and/or vacation time accrued so that he doesn’t have to show up for work and he can retire in March.

        Small price to pay to get rid of him and eliminate his influence in the FBI now.

Comments are closed.